Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Approved Schools

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present average cost of new places in approved schools; and how this compares with the cost of places in other boarding establishments.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): The new places provided in approved schools since 1st April, 1960, have been obtained by extending or adapting existing premises, at an average cost of £2,300 a place. New building will cost considerably more. As the purposes and requirements of other boarding establishments vary so widely, no useful comparison can be made.

Mr. Boyden: Are not these figures very high indeed? Is the hon. Lady's Department taking any steps to carry out major reconstructions or build new schools in conjunction with consortia and effecting economies in that way?

Miss Pike: Although these figures seem high, adapting old premises is expensive and new premises cost even more.

Miss Bacon: Is the country getting value for all this money? Does the hon. Lady consider that she and her right hon. Friend have all the control necessary to ensure that the country does so?

Miss Pike: Yes. I can assure the hon. Lady that we are getting good

value, and I believe we have adequate control.

Sir C. Osborne: Why should delinquent boys get better treatment than lads who behave themselves? Why should we build palaces for these scoundrels? Why cannot we treat them more harshly?

Miss Pike: I do not think they get better treatment, but I believe that the treatment we give is in the best interests of society as a whole.

Sheep Stealing

Mr. Kitson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increase in sheep stealing; what action he intends to take by legislation, or otherwise; and whether he will make a statement.

Miss Pike: Separate national statistics for sheep stealing are not available. There has been some increase in the total figures for thefts of sheep, horses and cattle. The police do all they can, in co-operation with farmers, to prevent and detect these offences, and on the information at present available my right hon. Friend does not consider that action on his part is necessary. The maximum penalty for these offences is fourteen years' imprisonment.

Mr. Kitson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the penalties are severe enough if the culprits can be caught? Does she agree that the difficulty experienced by the police at the moment is catching the rustlers on moorland country? If the situation were to deteriorate, would my hon. Friend's Department be prepared to set up an inquiry into the situation?

Miss Pike: I appreciate the difficulties. As I think my hon. Friend knows, farmers are at present seeing what they can do to co-operate with the police.

Charity Commission (Registration Division)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present accumulation of arrears of work in the registration division of the Charity Commission.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am informed by the Chief Charity Commissioner that the present number of charities entered on the Central Register is roughly 33,000 and the number of applications awaiting attention 5,000. The arrears are being overtaken at the rate of about 300 a week.

Mr. Boyden: Has not something gone seriously wrong? Does the Home Secretary recollect that a couple of years ago he promised the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) that the scheme would be pretty well in operation by the spring of 1963? Yet there are now these arrears, largely due to the shortage of staff. What is he doing about recruiting extra staff?

Mr. Brooke: I was not Home Secretary a couple of years ago. Big arrears did mount up last year, partly due to the slowness of charity trustees to apply for registration at the proper time, so that we had a very heavy concentration of applications in 1963 which should have come in 1961 and 1962. We experienced difficulties in recruiting sufficient suitable staff during the early part of last year, but those difficulties have now been overcome and, as I said, we are overtaking arrears at the rate of 300 a week.

Mr. J. Wells: Would my right hon. Friend consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House with a view to us having a debate on this subject and on the Charity Commission's work in general in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take note of it, but my hon. Friend knows that I do not arrange the business of the House.

Mr. Fletcher: Can the Home Secretary assure us that none of the applications is in any way prejudiced by the delay in registration?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, I can certainly give that assurance. I can go further and say that, if expeditious registration is required for some good reason in an individual case and the need for it is explained, the Commissioners will do their best to deal with that case quickly.

Nightwear (Non-flammable Materials)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of recent accidents resulting from the sale of inflammable material for the making of nightwear; and if he will take further action to protect consumers against this danger.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to make it an offence to offer for sale inflammable nightclothes or to make it obligatory to specify clearly that the goods are inflammable.

Mr. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 16th January to Questions by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock).

Mr. Swingler: I thank the Home Secretary for drawing my attention to that reply. Can he say whether discussions with the trade on this matter have already started, and can he forecast how soon he will be able to report to the House on the possibility of making regulations under the Consumer Protection Act, 1961?

Mr. Brooke: I have already sent a letter, following my announcement last week, to 26 associations of manufacturers and distributors. I have asked for their early replies and indicated my intention of arranging a meeting to consider the position in the light of their replies in the next week or two.

Mr. Herman Woolf (Committee of Inquiry)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has decided that the Skelhorn inquiry into the Woolf case shall be held in private; if he will reconsider this decision; and if he will give an assurance that the proceedings, as well as Mr. Skelhorn's report, will be published.

Mr. Brooke: I decided that, in the absence of any power to compel the attendance of witnesses, a private inquiry was more likely to lead to a full and frank examination of all the evidence, and thus would better enable Mr. Skelhorn to arrive at the truth. I am


sure that this decision was in the public interest. To publish the proceedings at the inquiry would be inconsistent with the decision to hold the inquiry in private; but Mr. Skelhorn's report will be published in full.

Mr. Swingler: While recognising that it was a slip of the tongue on 19th December, when the Home Secretary referred to a public inquiry, does he not agree that this is rather an unusual step to take? Is it not normal to allow the commissioner, or whoever is appointed to make an inquiry ofthis kind, to decide whether the proceedings are best held in private or in public? Is not one of the purposes of this inquiry, not only that there should be a fair and impartial investigation of the Woolf case, but that there should be seen to be a fair and impartial investigation? How can this be done if the Home Secretary himself orders it to be held entirely in private?

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the report which I shall receive in due course will show that this has been an impartial, objective and comprehensive inquiry. I know that I am reported in Hansard as saying that there would be a public inquiry, but it must have been a slip of the tongue, because I have no recollection of saying that and I had already conveyed to Mr. Skelhorn that the inquiry should be in private. My reason was that, having no power to compel the attendance of witnesses, it seemed to be much better to ensure that they would attend by holding the inquiry in private. All the essential witnesses have been invited to attend, and I have every reason to believe that they will do so.

Mr. Hale: What is the good of saying that it will be a comprehensive inquiry when the right hon. Gentleman does not know whether or not vital witnesses will turn up? Surely, if he does not have power under this form of inquiry to summon witnesses and hear and cross-examine them on evidence on oath, this type of inquiry is inadequate for this purpose—an inquiry about which there is wide public interest and about which a great deal of public anxiety has been aroused, whether or not justifiably so we do not know?

Mr. Brooke: When the Police Bill, which I presented to Parliament and

which is now under discussion in Standing Committee, reaches the Statute Book, I will have power to set up a statutory inquiry at which the attendance of witnesses can be compelled. At present I have no such power, and it has not been suggested to me that this would be a suitable and appropriate case for using the powers under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is aware that this inquiry started seven days ago.

Miss Bacon: Is the Home Secretary aware that it is rather unfortunate that he made that slip of the tongue and referred to a public inquiry, thereby, quite unwittingly, misleading the House to some extent? Does he not agree that the only way in which public anxiety can be allayed, since the inquiry is now proceeding in private, would be for him to give the House and the country the fullest possible report of the proceedings?

Mr. Brooke: I have already expressed my apologies to the hon. Members concerned if I made a slip of the tongue. I have written to them about the matter. I have already stated on more than one occasion that whatever Mr. Skelhorn reports I will publish in full.

Edward Panting (Death)

Mr. Hocking: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement with regard to the death in Her Majesty's Prison at Wormwood Scrubs on 26th December of Edward Charles Panting, and the events leading up to it;
(2) what action was taken by the prison authorities when Edward Charles Panting was placed in solitary confinement at Her Majesty's Prison, Wormwood Scrubs on 26th December last, in view of his previous case history and tendencies.

Mr. Brooke: Panting was in the allocation centre at Wormwood Scrubs awaiting transfer to a training borstal. He was found hanging by his belt from his cell window; all efforts to resuscitate him failed. He was not in solitary confinement, but earlier in the evening he had been involved in a fight and had been placed in a separate cell pending inquiry. He appeared to be perfectly


normal when an officer took him his supper, which he ate. Less than 45 minutes later he was found hanging.
In Aylesbury prison in September, 1963, when serving a previous sentence, Panting had slightly cut his left wrist in a fit of temper. This was not thought to be a suicide attempt. Nothing was known to suggest that he might attempt suicide.
I deeply regret the tragedy of his death. I do not consider that it could have been foreseen or prevented.

Mr. Hocking: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there was adequate supervision of the boys in the television hall prior to the fight which led up to Panting being put in a cell on his own? How is it that this boy could start a fight on three occasions and get hold of some broken glass with which to attack one of his fellow prisoners if there was adequate supervision at that time? Can he say whether force was used by the warders, as has been alleged in the court, to put Panting in a cell on his own? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that on the occasion when Panting attempted to cut his wrist in Aylesbury Prison he also removed the stitches from his arm and attempted to allow himself to bleed to death? Was that not an attempt at suicide?

Mr. Brooke: With regard to the last incident mentioned by my hon. Friend, the medical officer at Aylesbury Prison considered that it was not an attempt at suicide. Of course, it is not uncommon for prisoners or borstal inmates to do themselves slight damage by cutting themselves, often with a view to getting into hospital as a result. I can assure the House that there was adequate supervision throughout. I do not believe that the House wishes that there should be, as it were, one prison officer to every inmate who should be watching his every movement throughout the day. There must be a measure of association. Panting was a boy who, on more than one occasion, got into a fight. Unfortunately, this happened. It seemed right to put him in a cell by himself for a time and, most unfortunately and wholly unexpectedly, he put something around his neck and hanged himself. It is a terrible tragedy, but I really do not believe that the right thing would be to supervise

individually every borstal inmate, with a large staff, every moment of the day.

Mr. Crossman: Will the Home Secretary consider further the evidence that he not only slightly cut his wrist in Aylesbury gaol but then tried to tear out the stitches? We are told that this was no evidence, but if there was any adequate psychological study of these cases it would be clear that this boy had tendencies to suicide. Is it not an indictment of the lack of observation that we should have reports now that there was no evidence on which to come to this conclusion?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. The prison medical staff are very well experienced in judging these men and boys, and there was no reason to believe that what happened in Aylesbury Prison was a suicide attempt of any kind. One does not like to speak about those who are no longer living, but Panting had shown himself when he had been in custody to be a somewhat aggressive young man and was certainly considered someone who was more likely to injure others than himself.

Prisons (Hostel Scheme)

Mr. Fitch: the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many of Her Majestys' prisons the hostel scheme is in operation; and if he will make a statement on how the scheme is working.

Mr. Brooke: The hostel scheme is in operation at 16 prisons, 2 of which are for women. Three new hostels were opened in 1963. The results of the scheme continue to be encouraging. Research into its effects with different types of prisoners is proceeding.

Mr. Fitch: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many prisoners have taken part in the hostel scheme, and how many of those have subsequently been reconvicted?

Mr. Brooke: Up to the end of 1962, 460 men serving sentences of imprisonment had been in hostels and had been discharged from them at the end of their sentences. Four hundred and fifteen of those 460 had not been reconvicted a year later, at the end of 1963, and it was on this ground that I said that the experience was encouraging.

Treatment of Offenders (Advisory Council Report)

. Mr. Fitch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations in the Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders in relation to the organisation of after-care; and if he will make a statement

Mr. Brooke: As my Advisory Council recognised, the fulfilment of their proposals must necessarily extend over a period of years and will call for a great expansion of the probation service. The first step is, in consultation with the interests concerned, to draw up detailed plans for the implementation of the proposals. This is already in hand. I attach great importance to achieving a major improvement in after-care, and I am most anxious to press forward.

Mr. Fitch: Can the Home Secretary say whether prison officers are now receiving training in methods of rehabilitation and after care?

Mr. Brooke: The Prison Officers Association passed a very helpful resolution at its last annual conference. That has led to the discussions between representatives of the Association and of my Prison Department to consider how prison officers can take a more positive part in social work in prisons.

Jury Service (Deaf and Blind Persons)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a blind deaf person, who is officially registered as such, is nevertheless liable to jury service and can only be excused when called for jury service, on production of a medical certificate; and if he will introduce early legislation to give all such registered persons complete exemption from jury service

Miss Pike: The question whether physically disabled persons should be exempt from jury service is among those being considered by the Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest.

Sir B. Janner: I note what the hon. Lady has said, and I appreciate that the problems are being considered, but is not the present position ridiculous, and are not similar situations which have arisen ridiculous? Can she not advise the officers concerned that when they are satisfied that a person is registered as blind and deaf, or that some responsible society has accepted that person as being blind and deaf, or blindor deaf, such person should not be put to further trouble or expense at any future time? If she cannot do that under the Acts, is she not prepared to bring in legislation forthwith to deal with the ridiculous position at least and not wait for the report of the Committee? The complaint is so perfectly obvious.

Miss Pike: It is because the present law needs overhauling that my right hon. Friend has set up the Departmental Committee. I think that we should see what the Committee reports, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is making good progress and will be able to report before the end of the year.

Sir B. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise this question on the Adjournment.

Scrap Metal Dealers

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation which would require dealers in scrap metal to obtain a licence so to deal, which could be revoked if certain conditions were not fulfilled by the licensee, and which would increase the present maximum penalties for dumping unsaleable scrap by the side of the road and for camping on the highway.

Mr. Brooke: I doubt whether the licensing of all dealers in scrap metal would be a satisfactory method of dealing with the problem of dumping by itinerant dealers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I will consider an increase of the penalties for depositing rubbish and camping on the highway when an opportunity for legislation occurs.

Mr. Longden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will hurry up this consultation, because many parts of my constituency are rendered absolutely hideous by this intolerable nuisance committed by these "diddicoys", as they are called? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Hertfordshire police made no fewer than 600 prosecutions against these people in 1962, and that the Metropolitan Police prosecuted 300, without making any impression at all on the problem? My constituents look to the Government to do something about the matter?

Mr. Brooke: General questions about the adequacy of the law relating to the dumping of material on highways, and the powers of highway authorities in this respect, are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport rather than for myself. My hon. Friend might like to follow up the matter with my right hon. Friend. I have given my answer about the penalties, which are a matter for me.

Police Training College

. Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now establish a police training college on the lines of that inaugurated at Hendon by the late Lord Trenchard, which ceased to function during the last war and has not since been reopened.

Mr. Brooke: The higher training of the police is, in my view, well provided for at the Police College at Bramshill, which was established in 1948.

Mr. Longden: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the Hendon College was a very great success in its day; and that many of the people who are now at the top in the force were graduates there? Would it not be a good thing to reinstitute it?

Mr. Brooke: The Hendon College was for the Metropolitan Police alone. It was an experiment which started in 1934; the arrangements were substantially altered in 1938 and, inevitably, it came to an end during the war. But I hope that my hon. Friend, and any other hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested, will take the opportunity to visit the new Police

College at Bramshill, if they have not done so. I think that they will be very greatly impressed by the higher training going on there.

Greek Royal Visit (Incidents)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the inquiry into the circumstances in which various persons were charged with carrying offensive weapons during a demonstration at the time of the Greek royal visit.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in full the report of the police inquiry into incidents connected with the visit of Queen Frederika of Greece last July

Mr. Brooke: The Commissioner of Police has received a report from the senior officer whom he directed to carry out this inquiry, and after studying it he has thought right to refer it to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The House will appreciate that it would be improper for me to say anything more until the Director has decided what action, if any, he will take.

Children (Deaths from Burning)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of concern at the considerable increase in the number of deaths from burns among young children in the Birmingham area; and what action he proposes to take to remedy the situation

Mr. Brooke: I am deeply concerned about the number of avoidable deaths of children from burns, not only in Birmingham but throughout the country. The primary responsibility for preventing these tragedies rests upon parents and those in charge of children, and I am doing all I can to bring that home to them. My Department has sponsored a film to be shown on television about the danger of burns from clothing, and also gives support to the efforts of organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. As I announced last week, I am opening discussions with the trade, and other interested parties, on the possibility of prohibiting by regulation the sale of flammable nightwear.

Mr. Yates: I appreciate that Answer, but is not the Minister aware that the number of deaths from this cause among children in the Birmingham area is quite unprecedented this year and has caused very considerable alarm? Does he not think that it would be good to have a conference on the improvement of propaganda so that we can seriously change the present situation?

Mr. Brooke: I will do everything that it is open to me to do here. I think that the House last week accepted, and fully supported, my decision to open discussions without delay on the possibility of dealing with the matter by regulations. I have indicated that I am doing all I can by publicity, and the Consumer Council is also active in the matter. These are avoidable tragedies, and if the hon. Gentleman cares to point out any other steps he thinks it worth while to take I would most gladly and sympathetically consider them.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is the Minister aware that the Shirley Institute, Manchester, which I have recently visited, has carried out the most exhaustive researches into the fire proofing of textile materials to minimise or mitigate these risks? Will he bear in mind that the facts of the situation are well known? Types of textiles that do not expose children to fire risks are available on the market, and it is only because of the lack of public conscience—and the lack of conscience on the part of commercial firms who are importing large quantities of these dangerous materials from the Far East, and elsewhere—that this risk to our children remains so grave. Will he not regard it as urgent for his Department to produce legislation to prohibit the sale of the type of flannelette that exposes so many children to this great risk?

Mr. Brooke: I have already said what I am doing with the general support of the House. The matter is not quite as simple as the hon. Member suggests, because the non-flammable materials are at present more expensive than the flammable ones. But I am pressing on as hard as I can, and everything I can do to diminish this terrible toll of children's deaths, I shall do.

Mr. J. Silverman: When the right hon. Gentleman consults about the prohibition of textile materials, will he also

consider inflammable toys, which I understand are one source of this sort of accident?

Mr. Brooke: That is a rather different question.

Remand Homes (Devon)

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for building remand homes for young persons in Devon; and if he will give the number of remand homes in the county at the present time.

Miss Pike: The provision of remand homes is the responsibility of county and county borough councils. The Devon County Council provides one remand home and Plymouth another.

Mr. Browne: But is my hon. Friend aware that at the moment this lack of places and of remand homes is causing great concern to magistrates in the county? Is there not something that my hon. Friend can do to encourage the county council to provide more remand homes for young people?

Miss Pike: We are not aware of an acute shortage of remand home places, but if my hon. Friend has any specific examples we shall be glad to look into them.

Miss Bacon: Is the hon. Lady aware that that is exactly what her right hon. Friend said during the passage of the Children and Young Persons Act, last year, and that we gave him ample evidence of a shortage of remand homes throughout the country? While we know that this is the responsibility of the local authority, may I ask whether sheis satisfied that the financial arrangements for building new remand homes as between the Home Department and the local authorities is satisfactory?

Miss Pike: As the hon. Lady knows, this situation tends to fluctuate from month to month. I agree about what was said during the passage of the Act. We believe that the financial arrangements are adequate, but of course we are watching the situation all the time.

Commonwealth Immigrants

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the continued large influx of


Commonwealth immigrants into this country, and the problems they are creating in certain areas in housing, schools and jobs, if he will introduce amending legislation to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act forbidding all immigration for a period of five years, or until the present immigrants have been properly absorbed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. In my view, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act is effectively serving its purpose, which is to control the rate of immigration from the Commonwealth, but not to stop it.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that very serious and regrettable disturbances on racial grounds took place recently in Yorkshire towns? In view of the fact that men of good will throughout the world have found it impossible to solve racial problems, whether in East Africa, in Zanzibar, in India or in South Africa, is it not the height of criminal folly to bring these problems unnecessarily into this country? Will not my right hon. Friend do something about it?

Mr. Brooke: The Government did a great deal about it by introducing control through the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I am thankful to say that we have been extraordinarily free from racial disturbances in this country in recent years. The number of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed is now less than half the number at the time of the introduction of the control. I shall, of course, continue to watch the situation carefully.

Mr. Lipton: If he has not done so already, will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at the representations which were made by Lambeth Borough Council in a deputation which I introduced to the Colonial Office as long ago as January, 1955? Unfortunately, all of that deputation's carefully considered, constructive suggestions were ignored. If they had not been ignored, many subsequent difficulties would have been avoided.

Mr. Brooke: Since then the Commonwealth Immigrants Act has been passed and I have available an Advisory Council, sitting under the chairmanship of Lady Reading, which is of great help

to me in giving me considered views about the problems that arise.

Mr. N. Pannell: In view of the fact that the next influx in the second year of the operation of the Act is so much greater than it was during the first year, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will indicate what he considers will be the tolerable limits on admissions during the year? Would my right hon. Friend not consider it reasonable in present circumstances to limit the issue of work vouchers to those who have jobs to go to or who have special skills, instead of issuing large numbers to those who have neither of these qualifications?

Mr. Brooke: The question of issuing work vouchers is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I do not think that it would be right to attempt to define a tolerable limit to the rate of immigration.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity.

Prisons (Food Supplies)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average weekly cost of food for male prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons at the last convenient date for computation; and how much of this was expended on fresh meat and fresh fruit and vegetables, respectively.

Miss Pike: With the benefit of the savings achieved by bulk purchasing and long-term contracts, food supplied to all prison service establishments in 1962–63 cost about 14s. 6d. per week per head, of which 13s. 3d. was spent on purchases and 1s. 3d. represents the cost at "grower's price" of food from prison farms. The value of fresh vegetables, computed on the same basis, was 2s. 4d., made up of 1s. 1d. worth purchased and 1s. 3d. worth from farms. Fresh meat cost 1s. 10d. and fresh fruit 4d., per week per head, at contract prices.

Mr. Hale: Is not this figure a lamentable admission of a wholly inadequate food service? There was a good deal of talking going on when the hon. Lady was replying and, unhappily, I


did not hear all the figures, but I understood her to say that 14s. 6d. a week is the average cost of feeding a prisoner who is engaged in work in a factory in a prison. Does it not occur to the hon. Lady that this matter should be looked into and that the whole question of diet should be considered in relation to health by an expert advisory committee?

Miss Pike: I would stress again to the hon. Member that these are contracts and these are bulk purchase prices. The retail prices would be considerably greater, even double. Therefore, when judging the figure one must compare it, as the hon. Member himself has said, with the cost to other institutions. I do not accept that this is an inadequate diet, but I agree that as standards in society outside improve we ought to see that improvement reflected in prison diets.

Accused Persons (Bail)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in the most recent period of 12 months for which figures are available an accused person has been detained in prison because bail was refused or was not provided by the accused; and how many of such cases were dealt with by fine, or probation, or by acquittal

Miss Pike: 35,244 untried persons were received into prison in 1962. Of these 1,265 were subsequently found not guilty. It is estimated that about half the remainder were dealt with by fine, probation or discharge, but the exact number is not available.

Mr. Hale: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that a refusal of bail has all the social effects upon an accused person of a short sentence of imprisonment—perhaps the loss of employment and all the other difficulties? When bail should be granted as a matter of right, unless circumstances of a special nature are proved, is it not monstrous to say that 35,000 people were sent to prison, to be fed for 14s. 6d. per week, before they were tried? Will the hon. Lady not consider with her right hon. Friend the necessity of taking steps to see that people are granted bail as of right unless there is real evidence to the contrary?

Miss Pike: The hon. Member knows that this is a matter for the courts and not for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Fletcher: Granted that it is a matter for the courts, it is also a matter which intensely concerns the House and the public. The figures which the hon. Lady has given are most astonishing. Will she not, with her right hon. Friend, use her influence to instil into magistrates and those responsible for the administration of the law that the withholding of bail is punitive and ought not to be used for punitive purposes and that wherever possible bail should be granted as of right?

Miss Pike: These figures reflect a great many people who are not in prison for very long. Some are there for a very short time while sureties are provided, and so forth. I am sure that what has been said in the House will be noted by magistrates.

Northern Ireland (Imperial Contribution)

Mr. Delargy: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the Government of Northern Ireland regarding the amount of the Imperial contribution to be paid by them into the United Kingdom Exchequer

Mr. Brooke: None, Sir.

Mr. Delargy: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he has not had consultations on this important matter, since the Imperial contribution would be reduced or even extinguished if aid for economic development in Northern Ireland were wasted or improperly used, as seems to have happened in a recent case which was judged in the Northern Ireland courts? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this House has sufficient control over money authorised to be spent in Northern Ireland? If he is so satisfied, will he kindly explain the extent of our control over the spending of this money?

Mr. Brooke: I do not accept any of the allegations that the hon. Gentleman makes. The reason why I have had no consultations is that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, passed by this Parliament, places the duty of determining


the Imperial contribution on the Joint Exchequer Board, of which I am not a member.

Mr. Lee: Does not the size of this contribution plus the oil subsidy and the coal subsidy determine the sort of subsidy which this country sends to Northern Ireland? Therefore, ought not the Government to look into the affair which my hon. Friend has mentioned, since, if they do not safeguard the moneys spent on industrial development in Northern Ireland, there is no guarantee that it will be the only case which we shall have to bring to the Government's notice?

Mr. Brooke: The administration of Northern Ireland grants to industry is a matter entirely within the competence of the Northern Ireland Government. Any question on the amount of the Imperial contribution should be addressed not to me but to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Drivers (Alcohol)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an excess in the legal limit of weight of alcohol to each 1,000 parts of blood is to be accepted as an accurate indication of ability to drive without other medical investigation

Mr. Woodhouse: There is no provision for this criterion in the Road Traffic Act, 1962, which was passed after very full discussion in both Houses. There has not yet been sufficient experience of the working of the Act to warrant amending legislation, but my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and the Home Secretary are keeping the matter under constant review.

Mr. Hall: In view of the pressure on the Government to introduce more stringent measures, will my hon. Friend bear in mind, before contemplating any change in the law, that the law in Sweden has recently been amended to prevent an excess of alcohol intake over the legal limit being taken by itself, without medical and police evidence, as an indication of inability to drive?

Mr. Woodhouse: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the fact to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention because we keep a close

watch on the practices of other countries; but, although they can be useful in guiding us in our decisions, I do not think there is any reason to follow them in all cases automatically.

Shops (Opening Hours)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the need of small traders to be allowed to keep their shops open for longer hours; and if he will make a statement

Mr. Brooke: I have received no recent requests from small traders to be allowed to keep their shops open for longer hours. I propose, however, to invite the up-to-date views of interested organisations, including representatives of shop keepers, trade unions, consumers and local authorities, as to the need, if any, for further legislation.

Sir J. Eden: Now that resale price maintenance is to end, is there not a case for allowing much greater freedom to small traders to keep their shops open during those hours which best suit them? Is there not a justification for the total abolition of the existing Shops Acts and their replacement by a Measure which will allow much greater flexibility in trading hours?

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that my hon. Friend will support the policy, which I have just announced, of obtaining the up-to-date views of all those who are concerned, including the small traders. I think that we ought to have those up-to-date views and then make up our minds.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will the Home Secretary resist all temptation to respond to the blandishments of his back benchers in this matter without the fullest consultation with the trade unions which are responsible for the welfare of the people employed in shops, and will he bear in mind that, prior to the original Shops Act and its successors being put on the Statute Book, the most refined form of slavery in this country was to be found among shopworkers, going back to the days of H. G. Wells, who wrote about it eloquently in one of his most famous novels?

Mr. Brooke: This is 1964, not the time of H. G. Wells. I hope that the


hon. Gentleman will approve my statement that I intend to consult the trade unions, but not only the trade unions. I intend to consult also shopkeepers, local authorities and, above all, the consumers.

Mr. Curran: In considering this matter, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the great change in the composition of the working population of this country since the war? Will he bear in mind that nowadays one-third of our entire working population consists of women and that roughly one married woman in every three now goes out to work? Does not he think that this great social change since the war justifies a reconsideration of shopping hours?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that women's organisations will be among those who will favour me with their up-to-date views on this matter.

MR. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN (STATUE)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will move for a Select Committee to consider the desirability of placing a statue of the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): These matters would usually first be discussed informally between the parties.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister initiate such discussions, because Mr. Chamberlain really has a claim on the affections of the House and the country as a pioneer in the public ownership of banking? If the right hon. Gentleman is ashamed of his association with the appeasement policy, does not he nevertheless consider that a suitable memorial to Mr. Chamberlain would be the continuation and extension of the principle of public ownership of the banking system?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that to peg a supplementary question of that kind on an original Question such as this receives much support in any quarter of the House.

Mr. Ridley: Has my right hon. Friend considered the desirability of placing a statue in the Palace of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald?

DISARMAMENT

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has made to the President of the United States of America for reconciling the Soviet Draft Treaty of General and Complete Disarmament under Strict International Control with the United States Outline of Basic Provisions for a Treaty of General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

The Prime Minister: Any proposals I may make to President Johnson would be confidential. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in the House on 20th January how we propose to proceed at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Prime Minister still consider that the Russian and American draft treaties are the right basis for negotiation and that a treaty could be made by having the best out of both, as he said two years ago?

The Prime Minister: That is what I said two years ago and what I still hope. The conference is now working to an agenda which, I understand, covers all the important points in the first stage of the United States and Soviet plans.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister give us a White Paper setting out President Lyndon Johnson's proposals regarding a freeze of strategic nuclear means of delivery and an explanation of Her Majesty's Government's views about that?

The Prime Minister: I am always ready to explain Her Majesty's Government's views if a Question is put down on this. I shall have to consider the suggestion for a White Paper.

Mr. Warbey: Since President Johnson has sent a personal message to the Disarmament Committee making specific proposals in the direction of a disarmament treaty, will the Prime Minister do the same himself, or has he no ideas of his own?

The Prime Minister: We work very closely with the Americans on these matters and we shall be working with them in Geneva, because we support the American disarmament plan, and have done all along. This aspect of it is a


matter which has to be discussed round the table with the Russians and the other people at the disarmament conference.

GENEVA DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (VERBATIM RECORDS)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has made to the President of the United States of America for making the verbatim records of the Committee of 18 Nations on Disarmament more speedily available to hon. Members, and for giving them wider distribution to members of the Press and to other interested persons and organisations.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to take up a matter of this kind with the President of the United States personally. We were able to speed up publication of the verbatim records a year or two ago, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would be pleased to look into the question again if the right hon. Gentleman will send him his ideas.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am much obliged to the Prime Minister for that Answer. Does he realise that it is of great importance that people interested in this subject should have the records soon and that it is simply a question of giving the Secretary-General enough money to bring them out the following day after each meeting, as he always does for the Security Council, the General Assembly or other meetings?

The Prime Minister: When I managed to get some speed in this matter two years ago, I did not find that it was a question of money. It is a matter of delegations wanting to check up on what their delegates have said the day before, and this sometimes takes a little time.

Mr. Warbey: Would not my right hon. Friend's proposal be of considerable advantage to the Prime Minister in that if he has any ideas of his own about how to get on with disarmament they could be put on the record and given full publicity?

The Prime Minister: I am all for the idea that the statements of Her Majesty's Government and of all the other delega-

tions should be available as speedily as possible. It is simply a mechanical matter of getting the records checked.

SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister what machinery exists to co-ordinate the policies of the Foreign Office and Colonial Office with regard to the export of arms to South Africa from or through Colonial Territories.

The Prime Minister: Arms cannot be exported from or imported into a Colonial territory except under licence. No case has come to my notice of a Colonial Government being asked to issue a licence for the export of arms to South Africa. An application for the export of repressive arms would be refused. In cases of doubt Her Majesty's Government's advice would be sought.

Mr. Mayhew: We can assume, then, that no arms of a repressive kind have gone to South Africa from Colonial Territories?

The Prime Minister: I think that that would be a fair assumption.

Sir J. Eden: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that we will continue to uphold our obligations to South Africa and help to maintain an effective defence of that part of the world? Concerning the co-ordination of policy between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, will my right hon. Friend make certain that the Colonial Office is particularly alerted to the dangers of subversion in Colonial and ex-Colonial Territories? Perhaps the Foreign Office will tell it something about that.

The Prime Minister: What has been happening lately in some ex-Colonial Territories is a matter of great anxiety. I have made our position clear on the question of arms to South Africa time and again.

MIDDLE EAST (JORDAN WATERS)

. Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the serious situation in the Middle East


arising from the dispute over the Jordan waters, the recent Cairo conference of Arab heads of state and the joint responsibility of the two governments under the Tripartite Declaration of 1951, he will discuss with President Johnson on his forthcoming visit the Johnston Unified Water Plan for the Middle East as a possible basis of settlemen

The Prime Minister: My talks with President Johnson will cover many problems of common concern but the discussions will be confidential. I do not think it would be right for me to refer to the Agenda in public in advance of our meeting.

Mr. Henderson: Would not an agreement, if achieved, on the basis of the Johnston Unified Water Plan be equitable to both sides? Will the Prime Minister consult President Johnson with a view to persuading the Arab riparian States to consider this plan?

The Prime Minister: I will consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not true that the Johnston Unified Water Plan has been discussed for a very long time and that the Arab States will not accept it at present? Therefore, there seems no option but for Israel to go ahead with its part of the plan. Is it not a waste of time trying to get the Arabs into a frame of mind to accept this plan?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there would be much advantage in my pursuing this matter by question and answer at the moment.

Sir B. Janner: Has consideration been given to the fact that the Israel plans come solely within the territory of Israel, that these are no concern of any other territory and that Jordan has already proceeded with the water plan, on her territory, without consulting anybody else? The courageous and energetic attempts being made by Israel to arrest the desert should be encouraged and not deprecated by anybody, and we will not put up with the kind of blackmail being used by the Arab States. [An Hon. Member: "Who are 'we'?"]

The Prime Minister: An hon. Member says. "Who are 'we'?". I think

that, on the whole, it is better for the House to leave the matter as it is at the moment.

THE HIGHLANDS (RAILWAY SERVICES)

Sir J. MacLeod: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to save individuals and local authorities further expense, he will give an assurance that approval will not be given to closure of the railway services north and west of Inverness until the wider implications of these closures have been considered by the Highland Transport Board.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has already given an assurance that he will obtain the Board's advice on these proposals.
Decisions on them will be taken only after he and the Minister of Transport have fully considered this advice, together with the reports on hardship by the Transport Users Consultative Committee and other evidence on the wider implications of the proposals.

Sir J. MacLeod: My right hon. Friend will be aware that considerable consternation has been caused by the uncertainty of the position. Will he ensure that the Government announce a decision in this matter soon and say how ridiculous these proposals are?

The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland must have the advice from these bodies dealing with hardship and every other aspect of the case before taking a decision.

Mr. H. Wilson: I take it that the Prime Minister sticks to his assurance, given repeatedly in Kinross and West Perthshire, that there will be no closures unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that adequate alternative transport facilities are available and that this assurance applies equally to England and Wales. If he reconfirms that statement, does not he agree that it makes absolute nonsense of the speech of the Minister of Transport last April?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. When I make a pledge and say what is going to be done, I do not have to reaffirm it.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that not only will the views of the Highland Transport Board be sought before any question of closure arises but that no closures will take place before the Government produce a plan for Highland development?

The Prime Minister: I think that both right hon. Members must consider the questions which have been looked at by the Transport Board. That is what the Question on the Order Paper is about.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since it took four supplementary questions to get the right hon. Gentleman to reaffirm in the House what he said in Kinross and to say that it applies to England and Wales, will he now answer the second part of my question as to whether or not this is a complete derogation of what the Minister of Transport told us in April when he said that one-third of the railway services were to be closed and that a further one-third were under consideration for closure?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No, Sir". The answer to the second part is that what I have told him three times is true.

Mr. Ross: The Prime Minister has given an assurance that he will obtain the advice of the Highland Transport Board. Will he also assure us that he will accept the advice of the Transport Board?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give an assurance that advice will be accepted until I have seen it.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Mr. Cronin: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the interdepartmental machinery for the financial control and forward estimating of the Government-sponsored aircraft production programme, and with the techniques applied for monitoring individual projects; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: In the defence field the Government have already thoroughly overhauled the procedures for forward estimating on new projects. Experience may well show that further

improvements in the interdepartmental machinery and in the technique of monitoring are necessary. As the House is aware, the Estimates Committee, in its recently published Second Report, has made a number of recommendations concerning transport aircraft. The Government is examining these recommendations carefully and a reply will be made in due course.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind that the Estimates Committee's Report indicates that the Minister of Aviation has entered into contracts on unfavourable terms with the British aircraft manufacturers and the French Government without proper Treasury participation, is it not urgent that the Prime Minister should look into this matter and improve Treasury co-ordination, particularly bearing in mind that £240 million has been spent by the Ministry of Aviation on aircraft projects which have been cancelled?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member knows, the Public Accounts Committee reviewed the changes in procedure in 1961–62, and in paragraph 53 of its Report it recognised that some time must necessarily elapse before it is possible to judge the extent of the improvements achieved. I am perfectly willing to make any improvements which seem to me to be necessary and to examine this matter.

Sir G. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend has said that a reply will be sent to the Estimates Committee in due course. It would be of great service to the House if a reply could be sent very soon because I think that we should have an early debate on this matter.

The Prime Minister: I note what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the Estimates Committee's Report reveal that there is a serious lack of Treasury control over the Concord project? Is it not a bit too late to consider these recommendations of the Estimates Committee since £85 million of public money has already been committed?

The Prime Minister: I was asked whether any improvements could be made and I said that I was always willing to consider improvements. I take it that that was a sensible thing to say.

DR. ERHARD (VISIT)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) on 21st January.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is not the Prime Minister aware that it is unsatisfactory that his discussions with Dr. Erhard on Britain's resumption of negotiations to go into the Common Market should remain confidential in view of the public speculation? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this was discussed with Dr. Erhard and what assurances he gave?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Conversations with Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of other countries are always confidential.

SECURITY COMMISSION

Mr. H. Wilson: (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a further statement about the machinery for dealing with inquiries on security?

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I apologise to the House for the fact that this is a rather long statement, but it is important.
In the debate on 16th December I described in outline the Government's proposals for a Standing Security Commission and proposed further consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman and I have had further discussions about this and in the light of them the Government have decided to set up a Security Commission with the following terms of reference:
If so requested by the Prime Minister, to investigate and report upon the circumstances in which a breach of security is known to have occurred in the public service, and upon any related failure of departmental security arrangements or neglect of duty; and, in the light of any such investigation, to advise whether any change in security arrangements is necessary or desirable.

Mr. Justice Winn has agreed to serve as Chairman and the other members will be Lord Normanbrook and Sir Caspar John. The Cabinet Office would provide the Secretary of the Commission.
Before asking the Commission to investigate a particular case, the Prime Minister will consult with the Leader of the Opposition.
Under the terms of reference, the Commission could be called upon to act if there had been a breach of security even though there had been no conviction—perhaps because the individual had fled the country. Normally, the Commission would sit in private and would examine the witnesses themselves.
Usually, it would be unnecessary for any of the witnesses to be legally represented. But it is impossible to foresee all the circumstances, and the Commission would be authorised to permit a witness to be accompanied by his legal adviser if satisfied that his interests required such protection.
Exceptionally, the Commission might find that they were unable to make progress without powers to compel evidence. In such a case, Parliament would be asked to pass the necessary Resolutions under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to vest the Commission with the powers of that Act for that particular inquiry. The Commission would then proceed in all respects as a Tribunal of Inquiry.
The decision whether to sit in private or in public would be governed by the relevant statutory provision, and the normal procedure for having the case presented by counsel and for allowing legal representation would apply. When legal representation was allowed the Commission would be asked to advise whether an ex gratia contribution to the cost of such representation should be made from public funds.
In the ordinary case the Commission would report direct to the Prime Minister. When the Commission had been constituted a Tribunal of Inquiry, the report would formally be submitted to the Home Secretary, as required by the 1921 Act. But in either case the Leader of the Opposition would be consulted by
the Prime Minister when the report was received. The report would be made public to the extent that this was consistent with security considerations.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that although his answer was a little long, it was undoubtedly for the convenience of the House that he should give a full statement on what has been discussed between us?
I have only one supplementary question. Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred, in circumstances with which I fully agree—and I agree with the whole statement—to the possibility that where further action is necessary to compel witnesses to come forward and to speak the truth it will be necessary to clothe the Commission with the powers of the 1921 Act, will he bear in mind—I have given him notice of this supplementary question—that there is grave concern on both sides of the House about the working of the 1921 Act?
Will the Prime Minister therefore consider the proposal, which we have put forward on a number of occasions, that there should be a Select Committee of the House to review the working of the 1921 Act?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I believe that there is a lot of anxiety and concern. I do not think that the debate in another place produced any new proposal, but nevertheless these matters should be considered; and I will certainly consider them. I should not like to give a firm undertaking today, but I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Cole: Would not my right hon. Friend think that in the terms of reference the words
a breach of security is believed to have occurred
rather than "is known to have occurred" would cover a wider compass and would seem to be justified by the remainder of his statement?

The Prime Minister: I should like to look further at the statement and at what my hon. Friend has said, but I think that the wording covers every possibility.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister make clear what will be the position of the House, the Press and the broadcast-
ing authorities when a case is referred to the Commission? It will, presumably, be impossible to discuss it in the House or to ask Questions about it. Will it also be impossible for any comment to be made either on the air or through the Press?

The Prime Minister: I do not see why the statement which I have made should set any limitation on discussion in this House. I should, however, like to consider the point made by the right hon. Gentleman and give him a considered reply, although I do not see prima facie any reason why the statement imposes a limitation.

Mr. H. Wilson: I agree with what the Prime Minister has said. Is it not clear that a reference to the Commission, which will not be a judicial tribunal until it is clothed with powers given by this House, would have no effect on the freedom of this House, the Press or broadcasting authorities or anyone else? Could it not be made clear that this body is an administrative Commission and not a judicial tribunal?
Will the Prime Minister, however, consider the point, which bears on the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—it is a point which I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman—that it should be understood that whenever a reference is made to the Commission there will be an announcement of the fact even if it refers to a case which has not become public through prosecution or court proceedings?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; there should be an announcement. There is nothing in what I have said today to curtail the rights of Parliament and the Press.

Mr. Bellenger: The Prime Minister will be aware of the circumstances of the Vassall case. If matters arise which are not entirely security matters which would be kept secret, will the House have access to any comments or reports by the Commission and be in a position to discuss them, if necessary?

The Prime Minister: I would rather that hon. Members read the statement which I have made. On another day we will return to any questions that may interest them. I should not like to


pursue the matter with supplementary questions just at this moment.

Mr. Hale: What would happen if the Commission came to a conclusion at some stage of its inquiry that a criminal offence had been committed? Would it proceed to report or would it refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions the papers, including the voluntary evidence, or what will happen in these circumstances?

The Prime Minister: Again, I should like to consider the question and return to it later.

Mr. Wigg: In his further consideration of this excellent proposal, will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of drawing upon the experience of the board of inquiry set up under the Army and Naval Discipline Acts and give to the Commission in discharging its administrative functions power to take evidence on oath? This is quite apart from any powers for which the Commission might ask under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act.

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA

Mr. Brockway: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on the present negotiations between Malaysia and Indonesia for a cease-fire on the frontiers of Sarawak and Sabah and when British troops are expected to be withdrawn.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Through the mediation of Mr. Kennedy, the Presidents of Indonesia and the Philippines and the Prime Minister of Malaysia have agreed to hold a meeting to improve relations between their countries. This meeting will be preceded by a meeting at Foreign Minister level. In addition, there is to be a prior meeting between the Prime Minister of Malaysia and the President of the Philippines.
As a preliminary to these meetings. President Sukarno has issued a cease-fire order to all his forces. However, the

Indonesian Government have explained that it will take about a week for this order to reach those forces which are at present operating across the border in Malaysia.
Since the expression "cease-fire" has been used, it should be emphasised that the Malaysian and British forces have been engaged in a purely defensive rôle and have fired only to repel invaders. Therefore, in present circumstances the question of the withdrawal of British troops does not arise.
Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome the steps which have been announced and they trust that these will lead to the restoration of normal relations between Malaysia and her two neighbours.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the degree to which the House will welcome this announcement and of our appreciation of the great services which Mr. Robert Kennedy has carried out in arranging this preliminary settlement? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will give the fullest support to the proposals, made by the three Ministers concerned, that the Manila conference should be resumed so that there may be a consideration of the development of a wider confederation for all these areas?

Mr. Sandys: I have said that we welcome the announcement that there is to be a meeting between the three heads of Government. I think that we must see how they get on.

Mr. B. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend try to impress on Mr. Kennedy when he is here the need for a guarantee by the American Government of any agreement that is made that full support must be given by the American Government to Malaysia and that we will not have any apparent equivocation by the American Government backing up other countries in the area?

Mr. Sandys: I do not want to anticipate the talks that we are to have with Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all welcome the announcement that has been made? Is he further aware that we welcome the fact that he has made it clear—as some announcements have not made it


clear—that this is a cease-fire by Indonesia and that Malaysia, whose territory was attacked, is not being asked, and should not be put in the position of saying so, to agree to a cease-fire? I repeat that we very much welcome the fact that this has been made clear.

Mr. Sandys: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has said what he has.

Mr. Fell: While the House welcomes the fact that British troops will be kept there for the time being, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that we must have more than words from President Sukarno in the form of an agreement before we shall find it possible to withdraw British troops?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. We shall want to see some deeds as well as words.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that British troops in that area will not be placed in the position of being unable to return the fire if fired at?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that any Government has ever put British troops in any part of the world and not allowed them to defend themselves or discharge their duties.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 27TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which, if the House agrees, will be taken formally, to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on Education.
Motions on the Representation of the People Orders.
TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Continental Shelf Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 29TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Administration of Justice

Bill [Lords], and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Remaining stages of the Public Works Loans Bill and the New Towns Bill.
Motion on the Rating and Valuation Order.
THURSDAY, 30TH JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill.
FRIDAY, 31ST JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be; Second Reading of the International Development Association Bill, and of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Bill [Lords], and Committee stage of the Money Resolutions.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that, apart from the debate on the Newsom and Robbins Reports, next week will be rather dull.
Will he tell us when he expects the publication of the Bill to abolish resale price maintenance and, also, when we can expect the White Paper on granting the Monopolies Commission the powers to be more effective which were taken away by the Government a few years ago?

Mr. Lloyd: It will be a dull but, I think, useful week.
I have nothing further to say today about either the Bill or the White Paper mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope within two, three or four weeks.

Mr. Wilson: What is to come in two, three or four weeks? Is it the Bill on resale price maintenance? We were told that the Bill was needed only to repeal Section 25 of the 1956 Act. Any hon. Member could draft that in 10 minutes. Or does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean the White Paper? Will he be more specific? Is it that quarrels in the 1922 Committee are holding up progress?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will find either the Bill or the White Paper quite as simple as he thinks. I have nothing to add to the estimate of time I have given. They will both be produced as soon as they are ready.

Mr. C. Pannell: What is holding up the setting up of an Accommodation Committee, bearing in mind that there are one or two matters of major principle about the future of the House to be settled before the General Election? I understand that it is dilatoriness in setting up the Committee which is really holding up the builders.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think so. I have been having discussions about this matter and hope to be able to make a statement very soon.

Mr. Cronin: May we have an early debate on the recent Report of the Estimates Committee dealing with transport aircraft, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister today indicated his approval to a suggestion by the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) for consideration of the Estimates Committee's Report?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider that as a possible candidate.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: My right hon. and learned Friend said that it was hoped to take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill formally. Will he make it clear that any hon. Member has an absolute right to raise any matter that is in order on that Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes—any matterin order on that Bill. In fact, I understand that it is a fairly narrow Bill.

Mr. Lipton: Is it the intention of the Government that the Bill dealing with resale price maintenance shall reach the Statute Book within the lifetime of the present Parliament?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Sir G. Nicholson: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend has not forgotten that the Estimates Committee is entitled to a day at a very early date. If we were to put down the Report emanating from Sub-Committee B it would be of the greatest possible help to the House to have the Department's replies first.

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Snow: During Question Time the Home Secretary informed the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) that he would consult small traders concerning the abolition of price mainten-

ance. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman publish in a convenient form the names of the organisation or organisations representing small traders that are to be consulted?

Mr. Lloyd: I will pass that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hastings: Is there the possibility of an early debate on the situation in East Africa? Many of us are deeply concerned by the course which events have taken and the fact that they seem to have come as a surprise.

Mr. Lloyd: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Jay: Can we get this quite clear? Do we understand that we are to have both the Bill on resale price maintenance and the White Paper on monopolies within four weeks from now?

Mr. Lloyd: So I am informed.

Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House is again disappointed by his failure to put down a Motion for the setting up of a Select Committee to inquire into the Canberra replacement? He will recollect that week after week he has said that he would give the matter sympathetic consideration. Can he hold out any hope of this matter coming before the House soon?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not think that I can hold out any hope for the very near future.

Mr. Monslow: Will the Leader of the House find time to discuss ballot rigging in Britain in the light of the revelations made by his predecessor?

Mr. Lloyd: There are ample opportunities within the ordinary Parliamentary procedures for discussing anything which is worth discussing.

Mr. A. Lewis: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow), has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to Motion No. 40? As both sides of the House, and certainly the country, are equally interested in knowing exactly what happened, will he accept the Motion without debate next week and let us have a thorough investigation to see what manipulations took place?

[That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the manner in which advice was tendered to Her Majesty during October 1963 on the person most likely to receive the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons as Prime Minister and in particular the allegations that information was given, as a result of personal prejudices, which was calculated to mislead Her Majesty.]

Mr. Lloyd: I do not see any point in the hon. Member's suggestion, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is already sustained by the support of the majority of the House.

Mr. Brockway: Has the Leader of the House now been able to consider the request, which was made to him by a very representative deputation, that facilities should be allowed in this Parliament for the further consideration of my Bill against racial discrimination and incitement?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not in a position to answer the hon. Member's question today. As he knows, I promised that I would consider it, but I am not yet ready to give an answer.

Mr. Mellish: As the Leader of the House has admitted that next week's business is dull, will he make it more interesting by bringing in legislation to ratify the Safety at Sea Convention which has been outstanding since 1960? The Private Member's Bill upon which he is relying does not fully implement it and this is a matter of urgency.

Mr. Lloyd: It is a matter of urgency. I do not agree with what the hon. Member said about my hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill. The best course is to await that Bill, which is to be taken on 13th March, and see how we get on from there.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House given further consideration to the Motion concerning the way in which Ministers deal with Questions? Will he bear in mind that it is necessary not only for the Prime Minister to be satisfied that justice is being done, but for back benchers, too, to know the facts and to be reassured that what happened in this case will not be repeated by other Ministers?

[That this House is of the opinion that Answers to Oral Questions asked by Members should not be given to the Press for publication before the Member receives such Answers; and urges that a Select Committee should be set up to look into the matter.]

Mr. Lloyd: As I promised the hon. Member last week, I have looked into this matter myself, Indeed, I have had a conversation with the hon. Member about it. On the evidence submitted to me, I concluded that the hon. Member's suggestion was unfounded, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had already said. To be fair to the hon. Member, I should say that he is not wholly satisfied that the suggestion was unfounded.
On the whole, the future is probably more important than the past and I am sure that the House will agree that Answers should not be communicated to the Press before being announced in the House.

Mr. Warbey: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, can he say what opportunity hon. Members will have next week to raise the implications of the tragic death last Friday of a wing commander of the R.A.F. while participating in military operations against anti-Government forces in South Vietnam? So that hon. Members may have an opportunity to discuss the serious implications of this tragic incident, will he at least arrange for the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Air to reply to Questions on this matter next Monday?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall see that what the hon. Gentleman has said is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friends. I do not see an opportunity for a debate next week, and what will be in order on the Consolidated Fund Bill is not for me.

Mr. H. Wilson: As there seems to be some misunderstanding, will the Leader of the House make it clear that this is not the usual Consolidated Fund Bill, on which we can raise anything, and that it is related to the very narrow issue of the Winter Supplementary Estimates, on which Mr. Speaker will rule, of course?


We cannot raise anything except those issues which are within the Supplementary Estimates and the reasons for the increases.

Mr. Lloyd: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. Of necessity, it will be a very narrow debate if there is one at all.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the Leader of the House say whether an opportunity will arise in the foreseeable future to debate the Halsbury Report on decimal currency?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not next week, but I will consider it as a candidate.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to amend the Export Guarantees Acts 1949 to 1961, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums which, under section 3 or section 4 of the Export Guarantees Act 1949, are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of this Session—

(a) raising to one thousand five hundred million pounds the limit imposed by section 1 of the said Act of 1949, as amended, in respect of guarantees under that section and related transactions;
(b) raising to one thousand three hundred million pounds the limit imposed by section 2 of the said Act of 1949, as amended, in respect of guarantees under that section and related transactions;
(c) extending the application of the said sections 1 and 2, and section 2(1) of the Export Guarantees Act 1957, by treating the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as if they were part of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-Gray in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION AND REPEALS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.54 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: There are one or two questions which I want to ask on Clause 3. I was sorry that I could not take part in the Second Reading, when, perhaps, I should have asked the questions, but I understand that it will be in order to do so now.
Clause 3 increases from £800 million to £1,300 million the amount which can the loaned under the Clause, and, later—

The Chairman: I believe that the hon. Member is referring to Clause 1, with which we have already dealt. Clause 3 is only the citation Clause.

Sir C. Osborne: I am sorry if I am wrong. I have it here. The first page of the Explanatory Memorandum says—I am sorry, Sir William; I have misunderstood.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

3.57 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I shall not delay the House in any way, but perhaps I may have the opportunity to answer some of the questions which I was asked on Second Reading, in so far as I am able to do so after so short a time. Secondly, I hope that I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) an opportunity to rephrase his remarks, so that he can intervene in the debate. I say at once that if for what I know are good reasons he is unable to do so, I hope that he will not hesitate to raise any question he likes privately with me on some other more convenient occasion.
The purpose of the Bill is to assist in the promotion of British exports. As the House knows, it is necessary to increase the limits available to E.C.G.D. because of the possibility that the current limits, authorised in 1959 and 1961,will shortly be reached, certainly during this year. The figures which I gave to the House on Second Reading illustrate the immediate need for this legislation and I will not rehearse them.
The House will recall that the limits have been successively increased since the passage of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, on four occasions—in 1952, 1957, 1959 and 1961. In one sense, therefore, the Bill is a routine matter, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) suggested on Second Reading—in that it is a logical successor to the Acts of earlier years.
An increase in the limits available to E.C.D.G. has become, on the last three
occasions at any rate, a biennial process, again as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. There is one important departure from precedent in this Bill. It seeks Parliamentary sanction for an increase in the limits which, it is estimated on the basis of the calculation which I gave to the House on Second Reading, should remain valid for a period of five years, i.e., until 1969. I should particularly like to comment on this aspect of the Bill.
Last year, as we now know—for only very provisional figures were available during Second Reading—British exports totalled £4,075 million, an all-time record and an increase of some 7 per cent. over 1962. The House will agree that this is a substantial and positive achievment and reflects great credit upon British industry and business—on the designers, the managers, the people who make, the people who invent and, perhaps most of all, on the men who sell.

Mr. Dan Jones: A bit late.

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman says a "bit late". I am not clear what his view is about this impressive increase in British exports. I fancy, however, that he shares my great enthusiasm for it.
The calculations reflected in the Bill must be affected by a number of important factors. First, a continued and sustained further expansion of our exports is esssntial—again, I know that I take the hon. Gentleman with me—to the economic well-being of the country. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, therefore, to encourage and assist exporters. The work of E.C.G.D. is one practical example of this.
Secondly, prospects for increased world trade, so far as one can estimate them at this stage in 1964, seem in general good. There is no doubt that the opportunities are there for British exporters if our quality and our delivery dates are right—perhaps delivery dates are of specific importance as the home economy moves forward—and not least if our prices are right. We should be able to look with confidence for an increase in the total of British exports in 1964.
Thirdly, E.C.G.D. now insures roughly one quarter of British exports on behalf


of 7,000 firms. During 1963, business insured with E.C.G.D. increased by more than 18 per cent. over 1962. If, therefore, as we all so urgently desire, the total of British exports rises so similarly may E.C.G.D.'s participation. If so this must affect the calculation to which I have already referred. The proportion of British exports now insured by E.C.G.D. is twice the proportion insured ten years ago, and is higher than the proportion achieved by any of E.C.G.D.'s competitors overseas. Nevertheless, we certainly do not regard it as the maximum.
There is a fourth point which I should mention. E.C.G.D.'s facilities range widely. We have guarantees covering the whole spectrum of the export trade, from consumer goods to capital goods, from the smallest cut-lengths of cloth to the multi-million-pound steel works. We have special policies for special needs, such as constructional works, and, indeed, invisible exports like royalty payments and consultants' fees. Moreover, we are always prepared to consider special cover for any proposition which needs special treatment.
In other words, the figures written into the Bill must also be continuously affected by the development of E.C.G.D.'s facilities. Indeed, I have already stated in the House my determination as Minister of State at the Board of Trade, with responsibility under the Secretary of State for exports, to pay specific and special attention to the questions of development. Things are moving very fast, and it is most important that we should always be ahead of our competitors.
It is sometimes suggested, however—again bearing on this same point—that E.C.G.D. should be more flexible. From what I have seen of cases which have come to me so far, and these, of course, are usually the exceptions, as the House was good enough to acknowledge on Second Reading, E.C.G.D.'s approach is, in fact, very flexible. Every endeavour is made to find a solution, however unorthodox, provided that it does not damage the vital principles upon which the Department's success is based, and about which I spoke a little on Second Reading.
Difficulties have sometimes arisen because exporters have carried nego-

tiations too far and therefore committed themselves before coming along to E.C.G.D. to find out just how far, and on what condition, the Department can go. They have then expected E.C.G.D. to break important points of principle in order to get them out of trouble. I repeat that these are only a minority of cases, but they represent a matter which gives me a little anxiety because in these cases the people concerned are asking not so much for flexibility as for a root and branch change in proven policy which would suit their immediate interests.
Most exporters come along at an early date to find out what room they have for manœuvre. The point that I wish to make is that it is always possible for exporters, or people who are thinking of going into the export field, or wish in any circumstances to talk to E.C.G.D. to do so informally and at a very early stage, and I hope that will become increasingly possible and increasingly taken advantage of.
If it becomes necessary to turn to Parliament to seek a further increase in the limits before the expiration of the five-year period, this will be a matter for rejoicing in E.C.G.D., and, I am sure, also by the House. If the proportion of exports insured by E.C.G.D. continues to rise, and if British exports show the growth which the National Economic Development Council has recommended as the foundation stone for economic growth at home, then it is likely that fresh arrangements will require to be made.
E.C.G.D. is managed on sound commercial lines. As a business we are dependent, obviously, upon the good will of our client. I can assure the House that we are always eager to consider any constructive suggestions. Indeed, E.C.G.D. is, the House may think, forward looking in having staff specifically engaged in discussions with commercial organisations and individual exporters to inform themselves about the changing conditions in the export trade to which I referred earlier.
The aim—perhaps the House will think it is the right aim—is to be in a position to develop the Department's facilities to cater fully for these changing needs. It is unquestionably a fact that these facilities have now been


brought to an impressive pitch. I would certainly be the last to suggest that improvements are not possible. British exporters will always have maximum support from E.C.G.D. We are determined that they should not be at any disadvantage in the credit and credit insurance fields. We shall certainly vigorously continue our efforts for Government help for exporters and, in particular, to maintain the lead which, we are sure, E.C.G.D. has.
I think that these general remarks have some bearing on the specific points about which I was asked during Second Reading. I said in that debate, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to repeat it, that it is certainly our wish in the Board of Trade and particularly through E.C.G.D. always to be ready to listen, not least to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House. I hope that they will never hesitate to bring either to the Secretary of State's or to my own personal attention any particular cases or ideas. In that debate, a number of very useful and interesting points was made. I am hoping to let right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have specific replies during the course of next week on any cases which are still outstanding.
But one item that I should like to mention particularly is this. It is a matter of great general interest and importance. Several hon. Members were rightly concerned about the extremely important order for Trident aircraft for Japan. In particular, they wondered whether our credit facilities were good enough. I have made careful inquiries during the past week, and I have every reason to believe that our credit terms were fully competitive. One matter about which I am satisfied is that the Trident is undoubtedly one of the finest aircraft flying in the world today.

Mr. Douglas Jay: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Trident and there are other markets in which we hope to sell it, are the producers of the aircraft as satisfied as the Government are that our credit terms are competitive?

Mr. du Cann: I am happy to reassure the right hon. Gentleman completely on that. I was satisfied of that, not only on the Department's advice on this matter, much as I value it. The right hon.
Gentleman will be glad to know that in general the firm concerned is in agreement with what I have said.
On the other hand, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has raised a point of anxiety for the future, and if this is of interest to him, I give him a categorical assurance that I shall continue to watch this matter, and if ways are open to me to promote and assist in the sale of this aircraft, I propose to take them. In that regard there is one matter that I have under examination.
If Parliament decides that the Bill should reach the Statute Book, it will be providing the facilities for further growth in British exports. For our part, we must, and we will, do our best to see that these facilities are used to the maximum extent. The House may think that the Bill is, in fact, a vital instrument by which a further advance can be made possible.

4.12 p.m.

Sir C. Osborne: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am sorry that I made a foolish error during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I am grateful to you for the chance of making one or two observations which I should like to have made then.
Clause 1 says that the guarantees under the Bill have a two-fold purpose. First, to encourage trade, and, secondly, to render economic assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom. It is on the latter that I wish to ask a few questions. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that an increase: from a maximum of £800 million to £1,300 million is big enough or good enough? Will it meet the needs that are so obvious at the present time? Will it even begin to scratch the surface of the problem that faces us when we talk about giving economic assistance?
During the Second Reading debate on 15th January, 1964, at column 318 my hon. Friend said that the future scale of aid that we could give under this Clause depended on two factors First, Britain's capacity to give the this, and, secondly, on the Government's policy as to where the aid should go. I think that there is a much more important third factor, namely, the willingness of the nation to make adequate and bigger sacrifices to provide this aid. I do not think that the amount which the Clause allows to be provided is anything like adequate, and


the amount that will be required to deal with the problem will never be obtained until the country realises the vast problem which faces us.
During the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend gave India as an example of what had been done and said that she would benefit further under the new proposals. If my hon. Friend looks at column 362, he will see that he said, rather boastfully, that over the last 15 years India had received 16 loans under the various Acts. Those 16 loans totalled £193 million. He went on to say that with the extra money available India would get bigger and better loans.
We must be realistic about this. That figure shows that we were merely playing with the problem. A loan of £193 million in 15 years represents, on average, £13 million per annum. If we assume that there are 400 million people in India, and if we assume that the whole loan went in economic aid and not in straight business loans, that represents 7½d. per year to the 400 million inhabitants. I suggest to my hon. Friend and to the Government that much more help than that is necessary if we are to meet our obligations to the people living in under-developed countries.
Perhaps I might give the House five sets of figures which make me believe that the increase from £800 million to £1,300 million is inadequate. First, about two months ago it was said by the Leader of the Opposition in the Indian Parliament that 270 million people in India were living on 3½d. a day. The Prime Minister said that that was wrong, and that the figure was 1s. 3d. Whatever figure one takes, it shows that the standard of living is scandalously low, and for this nation to say that it is doing its duty by the Indians by giving them 7½d. per head per year is fantastically absurd. If we are to carry out our moral obligations to the less favoured nations, we must provide much more aid than that, and £1,300 million is nothing like enough.
Secondly, it was stated in the Economist some time ago that India had a totally unemployed population of 8 million, and 18 million people who are chronically under-employed, all of whom were crying out for help, yet in the last 15 years we boast that we have given them 7½d. per year to help them.
Thirdly,—and this is what alarms me still more—it is estimated that the population of India will increase by 116 million by 1971. If that be so, and if the amount of aid that we have given in the past is continued in the future, we shall give them less than 6d. per head per year. I think that the nation must look at this problem afresh and consider what is required of us.

Mr. D. Jones: I support the hon. Gentleman, but has he considered whether the money for which he is asking is available?

Sir C. Osborne: I have not completed my speech.
The fourth figure is the United Nations' estimate that apart from the most distressed sections of the vast Indian population, the average income per capita is about £25 a year. In this country it is £400 a year. For us to give them 7½d. per year and think that we have done our duty is humbug and hypocrisy.
If we are to get the nation to agree to provide vastly greater sums to render economic assistance by this method—and I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order, because I consider this to be vitally important—our people will have to be made to realise that if the wages paid in this country and those paid in India were averaged out, the figure would be less than £2 a week, yet we have men who are on strike at Port Talbot who say that £25 a week is insufficient. We have to get our people to appreciate that aspect of the matter, and I am saying to my hon. Friend that what counts is not merely the capacity to help, but the willingness to do so.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend to go back to the Cabinet and to plead for much greater assistance to be given to the under-developed countries under this scheme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The hon. Member would not be in order in going further on that line, because he would be asking the Minister to put something into the Bill which is not in it already, and that is not debatable in a Third Reading debate.

Sir C. Osborne: I am sorry if I have trespassed upon the rules of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am saying that an


increase from £800 million to £1,300 million does not begin to scratch the surface of the problem. I am setting out the problem to show why my statement is true.
In the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend took pride and pleasure in referring to the fact that over a period of 15 years we had given India 16 loans valued altogether at £193 million. I say that this is only playing with the problem and that the proposed increase is nothing like adequate. Since you feel that I am transgressing, I shall say no more, except that it is the realisation of the enormity of the problem that faces us and the inadequacy of what we are doing that horrifies me, together with the fact that the nation as a whole feels that, somehow, by leaving the problem to organisations such as Oxfam we are salving our consciences, while not being prepared to do what is required of us.
I support the Bill, because it goes a little way towards what is needed, but it is nothing like adequate.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has said on the general issue. I wish to raise the question of the administrative strategy of this kind of Bill. The first mention of this kind of Measure was in 1949, and we have had amending Acts in 1952, 1957, 1959, and 1961 which, I suspect, mainly altered the amounts of money made available for this purpose. My hon. Friend talked about the inadequacy of the sum of £1,300 million, which is the new figure, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, before the Bill has left the House, has prognosticated the possibility that within a few years he may have to introduce yet another Bill to increase the amount.
This House is far from being unbusy. It is far from having no legislation before it, especially in these days. In those circumstances, I wonder whether it is beyond the ingenuity of the Treasury to find a better way of dealing with the matter. I do not profess to be a mathematician, or an economic strategist, but I should like to know whether it would not be possible to

devise a sliding scale, based on a percentage formula, and perhaps with the £1,500 million as the starting figure, so that in every year, according to the number of requests received, taken together with our trading figures—mainly exports—a percentage could be added to the basic £1,500 million, so giving the Board of Trade a new top line from which to work.
I advocate that for two reasons. First, to the world at large it would show that we have faith in our ever-growing volume of exports. Here I should mention that my hon. Friend was careful to point out that this sum is supposed to last for five years. I should like to see the introduction of a sliding scale, which would mean that there was no ceiling—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is seeking to have something done which is not already in the Bill, and that is out of order in a Third Reading debate.

Mr. Cole: That is just what I am not doing, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am all in favour of the Bill. I merely suggest that on future occasions we might devise a different kind of formula—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is suggesting something which is not already in the Bill. The House can debate only what is already in the Bill.

Mr. Cole: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and turn to my second point.
The fact that we have arrived at a figure of £1,500 million for the next five years shows that there must have been a certain amount of thinking at least on the part of the two responsible Departments. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been honest in saying that he is not certain that this sum will be adequate for five years. I believe that this is the longest period that such a Bill has been designed to cover. For all the reasons that I have given I think that we should cease to lay down a detailed figure to cover a certain period of years. There are precedents in other Bills for arriving at percentage figures. If the rules of this


House prohibit that, we can surely amend them. This would be for the betterment and convenience of all. We ought to depart from the practice of naming a definite sum, and find a flexible formula.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I support the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clarity with which he has explained it, and also for the fact that he has laid down a fixed figure. This is highly desirable. I appreciate the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who spoke with great feeling. Sincerity is a great tribute to a man's faith and to his heart, but not necessarily to his head. I do not say this offensively. We must remember that when we urge the Government to provide vast sums of money—and these are vast sums, by any standard—we must not be surprised if the Government relate their ability to provide them to the economic position of the country.
This is not the money of the Minister, nor even the money of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth; this is money which the Government have not got, and will have to get from the taxpayers' pockets. Therefore, they must have some regard not only to the warm feelings which my hon. Friend has mentioned but also to their ability to foot the Bill. It must be remembered that not all these countries are newly emerging territories. Some have been emerging for some time, and sooner or later they will have to learn from the advanced countries that they must develop an ability to increase their own strength and to maintain themselves and their expanding populations.
To place the responsibility for the growing problems of some of these countries entirely upon the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government, and to say that we should have a sort of sliding scale, without paying any regard to the progress made in these countries themselves, seems to me to be quite unsupportable. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the extent to which this country is prepared to foot the bill in respect to the many demands which are put forward by various countries all over the world,

and I am sure that the arguments which he has put forward are entirely sound ones.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the lengths to which he has been able to go in giving sustenance and assistance to India and developing countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) would be the first to complain—not on his own behalf, but on behalf of all the citizens of this country—if he realised that any extra help, more than is proposed in the terms of this Measure, would mean extra tax burdens on the people of this country, and he would not have made such a moving appeal as I admit he did make this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth made one reference which affected me. It was to the charitable organisations to which the Government frequently appeal for assistance for emergent and under-developed countries to an extent which I feel is sometimes not quite fair. My hon. Friend referred to Oxfam, with which I am closely connected. I would also mention the Freedom from Hunger Campaign and the Help the Children Campaign. It would seem almost as though the Government rely on these charitable organisations to fill up any gaps which may exist in the amount of assistance which the Government are prepared to give.
We cannot dig more than a certain depth into the pockets of the people and today the charitable organisations give an enormous amount of help to emergent countries. If the Government felt at any time disposed to go further than they are prepared to go at present it would help the charitable organisations who would feel they were being encouraged, instead of being lectured about any further help that they should give.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. du Cann: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to do my best to reply to points which have been made during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has a substantial business experience which we all greatly respect and I thought that he was going


to pillory me about some detail of E.C.G.D. operations in the financial or commercial field, so I listened to his opening remarks with trepidation. Little did I think that the debate would develop in such a way that we should be talking about aid, a subject which, to some extent at any rate, is a little removed from the major purpose of the Bill.
Several distinct classes of business fall under Section 2 of the 1949 Act. Financial guarantees are one of the most important and, as my hon. Friend so correctly said, economic assistance loans are another. But the point I should make clearly to him, and at once, is that such aid as is given, and which falls for the purpose of financial calculation under Section 2 of that Act, is only a part of the whole of the United Kingdom's massive aid effort. In fact, at present it is only a quarter.

Sir C. Osborne: If my hon. Friend wishes me to attack him on the purely economic side, I warn him that next time I will do so. If he says that the economic aid provided in this Bill is a quarter of that which we provide, it means that the aid amounts to 7½d., multiplied four times—2s. 6d. a year which we provide to aid the people of India.

Mr. du Cann: I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would become very cross with me were I to pursue this point too far, because to give my hon. Friend the kind of answer to which I think he is entitled I should have to trespass far beyond the rules of order.
My hon. Friend's calculation may be correct. I do not have his razor-like mathematical brain, and I should prefer to go away and check it; and that I will do. I am not certain that one of the figures which he quoted earlier was right. But I will write to him on the subject.
I am saying that the aid channelled through Section 2 of the 1949 legislation is a quarter of our total aid effort. Whether that total is adequate is an entirely different subject which I should be happy to debate with my hon. Friend at any time. It is correct that during the Second Reading debate I said that there are limits on what we can afford. I must not go into details,

but I will refer to the White Paper on Aid to Developing Countries, which was produced a little while ago, and indicate three things to my hon. Friend.
On page 11 of the White Paper there is a table which shows that British overseas aid has doubled during the period from 1951–52 to 1962–63. That is not too bad for poor old Britain, which has so many enormous burdens to bear. It states, in paragraph 22, that
Our ability to maintain, and perhaps increase, the size of our aid programme depends on the soundness of our domestic economy.
My hon. Friend will be as delighted as I am that our economy is doing so well at present as to result in the amount of aid given in the 1962–63 period being an all-time record.
Government expenditure overseas, which is quoted in paragraph 24 of the White Paper,
is currently running at nearly £500 million a year.
That is an enormous figure. If one takes into account private investment at about £300 million—I hope that my hon. Friends will not disparage what the private sector ought and can do—one can appreciate that there is a substantial charge upon our balance of payments. My hon. Friend suggested that I had boasted about our aid to India. I do so because I think that Britain is doing just about as much as she can afford to do. I agree that we should like to do more, and so we shall, if we keep the economy moving and our balance of payments correct.
On the other hand, we must be realistic about cur resources. I admired very much the way in which my hon. Friend spoke from his heart and I have considerable sympathy with what he said. But there are limits and it is important to recognise that our Section 3 effort is such a small part of what we do, important though it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) discussed the method by which calculations are made. He discussed the whole circumstances of E.C.G.D. although, as you pointed out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that is not included in the Bill. I was interested in what my hon. Friend had to say.


Any constructive suggestion for improving the position will be given the strictest attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), whose contributions to our debates we have all enjoyed over so many years, beginning at Tower Hill and now in the House of Commons—I think that he and I have something in common there, although he seemed to get away with his speeches and I am not sure that I did—took a different view on the important point about parliamentary control of expenditure, which is a most important matter. It became clear, during the Second Reading debate, that the House welcomed an opportunity to discuss export matters at regular intervals—

Mr. H. Rhodes: Hear, hear.

Mr. du Cann: I note that I carry the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) with me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) said some wise words on this topic, to which we listened with great interest. Many of us know of the work which my hon. Friend has done for Oxfam and other institutions and we are glad to have the opportunity to pay public tribute to him for that. Also in connection with aid, we shall, next week be discussing the International Development Association Bill, as part of the business to be dealt with in what the Leader of the Opposition has called a "dull week". But none the less it is useful business. So, whether it is aid under Section 3 of the 1949 Act, or private investment, all these things are extraordinarily important; and most important of all is that Parliament should have the opportunity to talk about them at reasonable and regular intervals.

Mr. Cole: There was no suggestion in my remarks that there should be any lack of Parliamentary expenditure. But the amount would have to be sanctioned each year in one way or another and there would be an opportunity for discussion. I was trying to help my hon. Friend by suggesting that there should not be the paraphernalia of a Bill—which would have to go through both Houses of Parliament, and take time—every two or three years.

Mr. du Cann: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I quite understand that point, and note what he says. If I sat down in a couple of minutes, and nothing else untoward occurred, we should have been very quick in this House. Perhaps that is a model for other occasions and other legislation. Reading the Bill, and seeing how much of it is printed in italics, I venture to think that another place may be similarly quick, but it is not for me to comment on that.
I said that there were certain aspects of financial control of E.C.G.D. on which an investigation has been authorised. One can, perhaps, find places where one can improve and investigate further. I quote this because I want my hon. Friends to know that the suggestions made, whether we act on them or not, will certainly be taken seriously.
I again thank all four of my hon. Friends for their contributions to the debate. I was interested to find that they did not all agree all the time, but if they had done that might have been a pity. I am sure that this is a useful Bill and I am grateful that it has been given so warm a welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment out of the legal aid funds of costs incurred by successive opponents of legally aided litigants, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums required to meet any increased charge falling on the Legal Aid Fund or the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund by reason of any provision of the said Act enabling a court which decides proceedings against a legally aided party and in favour of a party not receiving legal aid to order the payment out of the appropriate legal aid fund of costs incurred in those proceedings by the party not receiving legal aid.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO AWARD COSTS OUT OF LEGAL AID FUND.)

4.43 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 5 and 6.
There is very little to be said on this Amendment that has not already been said in debate on Second Reading. The principle is absolutely clear-cut and simple. If it is just and equitable in all circumstances that an order for provision of costs out of the Legal Aid Fund should be made, it naturally and necessarily follows that it is unjust and inequitable to deny that. There is no way round this proposition, because it is logically watertight. However, in the Bill as it stands, the court, having satisfied itself that it is just and equitable in all the circumstances that provision for those costs should be made out of public funds, also has to be satisfied that the unassisted party will suffer severe financial hardship unless an order is made.
I say, in parenthesis, that this governs the case where the plaintiff in a court of primary jurisdiction, not on appeal, is backed by the Legal Aid Fund and his case is rejected by the court, the defendant, who is not backed by the Legal Aid Fund is put to the cost of defending himself. It also covers the case where a

person with a very indifferent case, but one which cannot be said not to exist at all, threatens to bring an action against another person who is not backed by legal aid and where the defendant's solicitors advise the defendant that although there is no good case against him he will be made to get costs against the legally-aided plaintiff and, therefore, the damages claimed would be less than the cost of defending himself, it would be cheaper and wiser to pay, although quite unjustly.
This is called by some people, such as myself, blackmail, and by others grey-mail, but it is precisely and exactly the same thing. The only argument of any substance advanced by the Attorney-General against the proposition embodied in this Amendment is that it would put a burden on the Exchequer. I quote from HANSARD of 6th December:
This would cast a heavy burden on the taxpayer—possibly in the region of £340,000 a year—for the benefit of a small number of persons, and, ex hypothesi, for persons who would not the suffering any financial hardship and, in many instances, persons who would be covered by insurance companies and would expect to take risk, such as motorists and factory owners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1595.]
It is self-evident that the smaller the sum of money involved the easier it is for the Treasury to meet it, but the larger the sum of money involved the greater injustice there is in not making this provision.
My right hon. and learned Friend is on the horns of a proper dilemma, because if the sum is, in fact, considerably larger than £340,000, by precisely the same measure so is the injustice greater to the people unable to recover costs having successfully defended themselves against an action which the State has financed in part or in whole. If, on the other hand, the sum is £340,000 or even less, it is much easier for the Treasury to find that sum. Either way, whether the sum be larger or smaller in fact than my right hon. and learned Friend's estimate of £340,000, the case is stronger on one ground or the other for accepting this Amendment.
As I painted out on Second Reading on 9th December, the statement that ex hypothesi persons would not be suffering financial hardship is quite untrue. The question is not whether they would suffer any hardship, but whether they


would suffer "severe financial hardship". This necessarily brings us to the second objection to these offensive lines, "severe financial hardship". No one knows what severe financial hardship means. No one knows how a court will interpret that. No solicitor faced with a not-very impressive claim for damages by a legally-aided plaintiff will be able with any certainty to advise his client whether, if he defends the action on the assumption that the advice is good advice, he will get costs or not.
Let us envisage a few hypothetical cases. Someone with a gross income of £2,700 a year with one child being privately educated, with a mortgage on a house, faces costs of £120. That certainly will not bankrupt the person concerned. It might or might not be said that that was "severe financial hardship", but who can say? It is not only a case of how High Court judges will interpret this. It may well be that there have been discussions with High Court judges, or it may be that my right hon. and learned Friend has watched very carefully what the attitude of the Queen's Bench has been in matters of costs.
I am no more concerned about the huge costs involved in High Court actions than the more modest, but nevertheless severe, costs which arise in county court actions which in the ratio of the wealth of the person concerned may be just as inconvenient, or impose just as much hardship even if it does not actually meet the test of "severe financial hardship".
I stress that on the ground of lack of definition and unpredictability the phrase "severe financial hardship" is not a good one to write into the Bill. It is likely not to prevent the continuance of the practice whereby people settle out of court, because the cost of defending themselves and getting a just dismissal of the action is greater than the damages claimed. That form of blackmail will inevitably continue in many cases unless this Amendment is accepted. It must be said that by definition no one can ever know how many of these cases there are each year, because by definition they are cases which do not come to court, although every solicitor I have spoken to about it has assured me that these cases are frequent rather than infrequent.
I therefore hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, even at this late hour, will be able to assure the Committee that the sum involved, difficult as it is to find any amount of money, is nothing like so important as the principle involved and the inconvenience, hardship and malpractice which our failure to accept the Amendment must inevitably involve. It is not often that we have a Legal Aid Bill before the House. The scheme was introduced 14 years ago. It has taken 14 years, during which time the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have been in office, to produce a Bill to get rid of some of the defects of the scheme. It is difficult to predict how many years will pass, if we do not take this opportunity now, before there will be another Legal Aid Bill to rectify the defects of this one. It would be much more sensible and just, apart from it being necessary, to accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Committee may think that there is a good deal of logic behind the argument so ably advanced by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Applying simple logic, I agree that there is great force in his argument. It is odd that a successful unassisted litigant should recover his costs only on proof of severe financial hardship.
However, what I believe the Committee should bear in mind is that on matters of this kind the force of logic must be balanced by considering the need for reasonable restraint in the use of public funds. This is a very important factor for the Committee to bear in mind. When it becomes widely known, as it will, that in a large number of litigations both sides are, in effect, being financed out of public money—I do not object at all to this principle—there might follow as a consequence a dilution in the public mind of any enthusiasm they may feel towards the whole valuable concept of legal aid.
We do not want this to happen. We must be very vigilant to ensure that it does not occur. If the public becomes acquainted, as it gradually will, with the notion of both sides being, in effect, subsidised in their litigation, there may be consequences in terms of public opinion which neither the hon. Member for Tiverton nor I would welcome. The reaction of public opinion


would be peculiarly unfavourable if one of the parties affected was a rich person or a, wealthy corporation.
It is because I give weight to this factor, which, perhaps, is not as strictly logical as the factors advanced by the hon. Member for Tiverton, that I would not wish to support the Amendment. I think it well that the matter should be left as a matter of discretion for the courts, and on the whole the definition of that discretion now appearing in the Bill appears to be adequate for the purpose.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. and learned Gentleman has legal experience. I have not. I should, therefore, be most grateful if he would explain to the Committee why the phrase "just and equitable in all the circumstances" does not cover the point he is making, whereas the words "severe financial hardship" do.

Mr. Irvine: Perhaps the Committee would prefer it if the hon. Gentleman and I pursued that matter elsewhere. I should be happy to do so.

Mr. Norman Cole: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). The matter of the unassisted party has been a bone of contention for many years, since the purport of the first Legal Aid Bill began to have its effect. Many of us have felt great sympathy for the unassisted party. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) may be sure that any question of the dilution of the value of legal aid or its respectability, as it were, is more than well taken care of by those who administer it, by the careful consideration which takes place before they withhold it or grant it in cases which merit it.
The position could arise where an unassisted party brought what proved to be a legitimate action against an assisted party and won his case but was entirely eliminated from receiving legal aid by paragraph (a) of the Clause. He would, therefore, be already under a defect, although properly in his own view he brought an action. As the assisted party did not initiate the proceedings, the unassisted party, having initiated them, would not in any case receive any kind of costs. Over the years many people will come within this category, either

because they do not apply for legal aid because they are too proud to do so or do not wish to, or because they are not entitled to receive legal aid. The fact remains that if they initiate proceedings and win the case they will not recover anything by way of costs.
I ask the Committee to consider the hypothetical case—perhaps it is not always so hypothetical—of a man who is on the borderline for entitlement to legal aid. He decides not to apply. He is not the initiating party. He fights the case and wins. I emphasise that he is not in receipt of legal aid. Possibly he would not qualify because of paragraph (b). If because of the nature of the action and his own financial position he were able to qualify as an assisted party and I ought an action brought by another party, although admittedly it might take it outside the conditions of the Bill, the inhibition contained in lines 5 and 6 would not apply to him, because he himself would be an assisted person.
Therefore, as the Bill stands it may have the result of encouraging a number of people, who at present are prepared to steam along on their own resources although they might just qualify for the receipt of Segal aid, to apply for legal aid. When they see the inhibitions under which they will suffer, in that even if they win they will not recover costs, they will try to put themselves into the privileged category, namely, apply for legal aid which, if granted, will mean that they will recover costs if they win. If they do not win the case, they will still be in receipt of legal aid. I believe that this is very dangerous. I can imagine people who are just as agile of mind as anyone in the House of Commons making use of lines 5 and 6 to get round the position.
I take a slightly different line from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton. If the case that has been mentioned of a man earning £2,700 a year would not come within the definition of the phrase "suffer severe financial hardship" cannot we find better words to cover such cases? There are many examples of what is, after all, a legal means test. The original Legal Aid Act must have contained some words to make this clearer. We may find a suitable definition of what is "just and equitable" to suit my hon. Friend


the Member for Tiverton because there must be words that are more definite in meaning and application than "severe financial hardship".
5.0 p.m.
It must also be remembered about unassisted parties who, in the first instance, do not receive legal aid for the employment of their professional advisers or aid for any other reason that they are unassisted and that, if they are of sufficient means, they will not get any costs after the case, despite anything else
I suggest that there is a definite area of unfairness, an area which needs to be considered in detail and an unfairness which needs to be solved, even if it would cost £340,000 to £350,000 a year. That cannot be considered an enormous sum—if it is, I would be surprised—against the whole background of legal aid. As has been mentioned, this may be the last Bill of its kind for some years and we should, therefore, take this opportunity of not perpetuating what could be an unfair position
I hope that the Attorney-General will think about this again. If he cannot wholly accept the Amendment I hope that he will try to find another form of words which will pinpoint more closely the position of the man who cannot afford to stand his own costs, even though he has withstood action without having legal aid.

Mr. Leo Abse: Despite the persuasive arguments that have been presented, I doubt whether a logical result would come about if the Amendment were accepted.
We have heard about the dangers that could result if it became generally known that it was possible for two parties to obtain subsidies from the State. That already happens, possibly more frequently than it may be appreciated, when there is both a plaintiff and defendant who are assisted. That does not only happen in divorce cases, where it is so often the case, but in other cases.
If the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is being logical, I cannot understand why it is, that although great thought and concern has been given to those who are well beyond

the tests applied by legal aid—as to any possible hardship to them—if one really wants to have a logical end to all injustice surrounding this point, the assisted defendant is being excluded. Clearly, it is almost as possible for considerable and severe hardship to arise in the case of a successful assisted defendant as it would be in the case of an unsuccessful one.
I could see some logic if what was being moved was a suggestion that all the assisted and unassisted may be not subjected to as rigorous a qualification as the one now in the Bill. I can see no merit in accepting an Amendment which merely applies to persons who are better off and not to those who are not so well off.
The second argument suggested by the hon. Member for Tiverton—and each hon. Member brings to this subject his own experiences—referred to the dangers that could arise by way of blackmail in regard to an unassisted defendant in a comparatively small claim who may think that rather than risk the possibility of the costs, which he will inevitably not recover, he will make a settlement. Some hon. Members recall what happened before we had legal aid legislation. In those days it was, unfortunately, almost always the case that if one of us acting for a person with little or no means was making a small claim, particularly against an insurance company, one found that there would be no settlement because the insurance company banked on the fact that the potential plaintiff would never have the money to get going. Until legal aid legislation came into being the little man with a claim was blackmailed by the big insurance company.
I remember this only too well and when we now apply the reverse, as it were, of this argument—as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Tiverton—I ask what the possible consequences would be if a legal aid certificate had been obtained by a plaintiff for a claim which, after all, must have some merit. It has been rightly affirmed that legal aid works in such a way that certificates are not given frivolously, but with care, and that, therefore, there must be some merit in the case. What would happen if, in small claims in the county court where a legal aid certificate had


been obtained by the plaintiff, insurance companies knew that they were able to recover their costs if they succeeded? From my experience I would answer thatby suggesting that there would be far fewer settlements. That must be clear. This Amendment could be an incitement to litigation, particularly in small claims.
A warning note, a caveat, was entered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) when he said that one must be careful to see that the public do not believe that any profession is exploiting the public purse. My hon. and learned Friend is correct and that must be borne in mind. At present, if an assisted person has his certificate in a county court claim solicitors are usually able, with most intelligent insurance companies, to settle it before it even gets into the barrister's hands.

Mr. Cole: I am sure that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) of all people would wish above everything else to see justice done. I am also sure that he has not overlooked the fact that we are talking about the unassisted defendant winning. Thus, what he is saying is that at the present time, because no costs would lie to the successful defendant, settlements are made out of court. He implies, by the same implication, that if the case came to court then possibly the defendant would have won. Are we, therefore, arguing about money coming from the State or about justice being paramount?

Mr. Abse: There would be a lot of gambling with State money because when a man has a legal aid certificate—indicating, therefore, that he has a case—and the other side would believe that they have a case there would be an encouragement to gamble with State money, particularly if they thought that they were not risking their own costs if they went in.

Mr. Cole: They are risking their money because if they lose the costs must be paid by them.

Mr. Abse: But they now usually believe that they will get an equitable settlement without getting involved in too much costs. Lawyers must bring

a little common sense to the question of how the legal aid scheme will work. They must not think only of getting their cases before the courts. Solicitors who are within the legal aid scheme try to think of ways of settling cases, not of pursuing them. This Amendment is likely to mean that we would be cluttering up the county courts with a lot of small cases that would otherwise be easily disposed of by a telephone conversation between two solicitors.
We need some sense of priorities. The Attorney-General has indicated that to accept the Amendment would cost £350,000 or £400,000. I know that there have previously been discussions about other needs, such as statutory legal aid at tribunals, and although I concede that there can be cases of injustice, we cannot legislate for every case, and if we are to keep a sense of priority we should be thinking about where we can do the greatest good.
The present legal aid scheme is not without its defects, but it is a good scheme. At the same time, it costs about £3½ million a year, and we should be thinking of how to use it in non- litigious claims. For instance, there is at present great public pressure about the cost of conveyancing—a property-owning democracy is in existence—as a result of which many young people purchasing their first houses are suffering great hardship. Apart from the Attorney-General's duty to look at the Land Registry to see whether there are enough funds to train people in order that the Land Registry system can spread—

The Chairman: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, surely, we are getting not only beyond the Amendment, but beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Abse: I suggest that in directing our minds to priorities it is high time to consider so applying the scheme that funds may be available towards people's conveyancing costs being available, as it were, on hire purchase. There are so many other priorities that when a plea is made on behalf of what are, for the most part, very rich insurance companies, and for a type of people who can insure themselves against these risks of litigation, I am not very impressed, and I am not particularly interested when I


know that the assisted defendant is excluded.
For these reasons, amongst others, I should not like to support the Amendment.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The whole Committee should be grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for putting down this Amendment. I confess that my principal interest in these proceedings was in another matter but, when confronted by this Amendment, I find myself wondering what its effect would be—and what, indeed, will be the effect of the Bill itself. I am not able to see how it will work, and I think that it may work somewhat unfortunately.
I say at once that in this matter I speak as a layman. I have no recent professional experience of the working of the legal aid system. My experience is to a Member of Parliament to whom individual constituents complain from time to time about the very high proportion of their income that has to be paid to secure legal aid. That is the first anomaly of the Bill, as I understand it.
I cannot quote figures offhand with any degree of accuracy, but a man with a certain income is granted legal aid conditional upon his contributing a very substantial sum. Very often, indeed—although my experience really goes back far too long—he is rather worse off in those circumstances than if there had been no legal aid at all, when he might very well have found a solicitor who thought that the man had a good case, and would accept a small sum to cover expenses and conduct the litigation. That used to be called doing it "on spec", but I never believed it. I think that solicitors honestly accepted a responsibility to conduct litigation where it was obviously in the public interest that it should be conducted.
5.15 p.m.
There used to be a system of poor person's divorce, and I found myself, as a singularly unprosperous solicitor at the time, very greatly out of pocket as a result of conducting a dozen or fifteen or twenty of these divorce cases. I must confess that I began to review my procedure when a lady asked for a poor person's divorce. When I asked her her

occupation she replied, "I am a domestic servant employed by one of your rival, but very prosperous, solicitors, who does not take poor person's divorces."
Frankly, my reading of the matter has been somewhat perfunctory. A man earning, perhaps, £750 a year, who has had to contribute £75 to the costs of the case as a condition of getting part legal aid, may have the verdict given against him. We must remember that the unsuccessful litigant is not usually a scoundrel, but a man who has just not been able to obtain the necessary witness. He may have just failed to satisfy the court that his honest account of the circumstances is sufficiently corroborated to enable the court, with certitude, to give him the verdict. He has had to pay £75, but does a man getting twice as much as he earns have to pay £75, or does he get 100 per cent. grant of costs under the Bill? If so, it seems to be an anomaly.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) was asked about the words "just and equitable". My hon. and learned Friend could answer better than I, but I will give an answer. The court would say that the obvious meaning of the words was that the person had been faced with unnecessary litigation, and unnecessary, unjustifiable expense, and that it would be just and equitable that some contribution should be made from the public funds.
If the words "just and equitable" import the possibility of financial consideration, one comes up against a second aspect. A great deal of litigation is conducted on behalf of defendants by insurance companies, through their solicitors, but the defendant is still the defendant. Presumably, therefore, if a person is insured, the defendant will not be able to satisfy the terms laid down. It is not an easy matter. I do not hold a special brief for insurance companies, and they do not inspire in me a passionately sympathetic emotion, but they are, in the main, highly reputable concerns administering their affairs with due regard to the public interest. But I do not see why an insurance company should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill.
There is a third difficulty. We may say that we have to establish "severe


financial hardship", and I must admit that I have great sympathy with what has been said about "severe". It seems to me to be a word with no possible definition, and one that it would be quite impossible to interpret without some sort of measuring standard. I do not think that the word has any judicial meaning of any kind or description. Is it "severe" if a man worth £1 million has to pay £1,000 unnecessarily? I do not know. One would have thought that it was if one had to pay £1,000 out of £2,000. It is severe on the unsuccessful plaintiff to have had to pay £75 out of an income of £10 or £12 a week. I may be wrong about the figures and I do not want to use figures which might convey a misleading impression.
Now we have a situation under the Bill as drafted in which a moderately-incomed person has succeeded. The comparatively poor plaintiff who has been assisted has paid his money by way of whatever contribution has been ordered. He has lost his case and the next test applied by the Measure is that the court will decide what contribution is to be made by the plaintiff. If the court decides what contribution is to be made by the plaintiff, that is presumably after that decision has been appealed against. Indeed, it excludes appeals anyhow.
It is obvious that the plaintiff is extremely unlikely to pay that money. What the successful defendant gets out of that is the future right to collect, by the sort of miserable process by which one tries to collect money before selling the debt to a collecting firm, and with the possibility of the plaintiff's going bankrupt anyhow. Therefore, already, by emphasising that, which seems an unnecessary provision in the Bill, we have hamstrung the successful defendant's chance of getting most of his costs.
I assume that in this matter the successful defendant has to make an application and has to satisfy the court. He has to be told that he must establish severe financial hardship. He has to give particulars to the court which will land his creditors on him the next day. It is not easy to establish severe financial hardship. The successful de-

fendant is presumably, and certainly is for all practical purposes in this matter, a man of unblemished character against whom no judgment has been recorded and who has had to face unconscionable expense and worry in contesting litigation. A judge says that Parliament in its unforeseeable wisdom has said that the man must establish to the court that he will suffer severe financial hardship. The man says, "I am a bank manager but I owe £500 to a bookie and I do not want anybody to know." What do we do about that? Are the proceedings to be heard in camera? That would be undesirable because in that case anyone could get away with almost anything in a matter of this kind. One does not have to disclose one's possessions in the Bahamas.
The unfortunate man has to go to court and speak of circumstances which he may have been trying to disguise from everybody but his wife for a long time. I may be quite wrong about this. The Parliamentary draftsman has to foresee every possibility in vacuo, but he really seems to have produced here a set of circumstances in which the Bill does not seem likely to work.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that this provision will cost only £55,000 anyhow. I would be the last to suggest that that is a small sum. I wish that I had that much myself. But it is now a small sum in a House in which at one time Hume used to complain about the expenditure of half-a-crown. That, of course, was a different Hume and the name was spelled differently. We, of course, are in a House which can throw away £100 million. That is the unhappy difference in the state of our affairs.
If people feel that they cannot take advantage of the Bill without establishing their own poverty in public it does not seem to me a beneficial Measure. If fairly well-to-do litigants are to be reimbursed more than if they had applied for legal aid and had received a modest grant that seems to me a little inequitable too.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In fairness to other parts of the Bill, it should be said that the provision which I find so offensive does not apply in appeal courts. The part of the Bill in reference to which the hon. Member talked about having


to disclose one's poverty in public does not apply there, although I agree with what the hon. Member has said about courts of primary jurisdiction. It impairs what little machinery there is.

Mr. Hale: I appreciate that and I agree with it, but I say to the Attorney-General that, at least, this discussion has raised one or two questions in the minds of hon. Members, many of whom are more experienced in these matters than I am, which are worthy of being looked at. Before we place the Bill on the Statute Book, someone should consider just how it will work and whether it will work very happily.

Sir Frank Soskice: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) moved the Amendment with great cogency and force. I would not be able to support the Amendment, for a reason which I will give in a moment, but I earnestly ask the Attorney-General to think further about the language which he has used in the Bill and take it back and perhaps reshape it.
I should like to say first why I should find it difficult to support the Amendment. My reason would be that if we take out the requirement that severe financial hardship should be established, we are thrown back, as the hon. Member for Tiverton pointed out, on the requirement that it should be just and equitable in the circumstances to offer the relief as the only requirement which has to be satisfied. It seems to me that that would not be a wholly satisfactory position.
Let us consider a defendant who may be the Prudential Assurance Company or the Westminster Bank or some large corporation. If a judge is asked to say, in circumstances in which that defendant has won an action brought against him, whether it is just and equitable that that defendant should have relief, it is an almost impossible task. There is no criterion by reference to which the judge can decide.
In the assumed circumstances, an action has been brought against a bank or an insurance company which was not justified, conceivably because the plaintiff could not muster up the evidence which nevertheless was available, or more probably because it was found when the

evidence was examined that the action was one which was not sustainable. Therefore, to rely simply upon the test of whether it is just and equitable to grant the relief is not sufficient. No judge can reasonably enforce that, unless he is given some further guidance as to what circumstances he should take into account. I would find it difficult, for that reason, to support the Amendment, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has just said, I think that the discussion has made it clear that there is a considerable amount of disquiet in the Committee about the present wording of the Bill.
I accept wholeheartedly what the hon. Member for Tiverton said when he pointed out that the test of severe financial hardship is so very unpredictable. It is such an uncertain test. The object of the Bill is primarily to give a measure of relief to persons, I suppose with modest incomes or medium incomes, and to rescue them from the position in which they have to find out of their own pockets what may be to them a substantial sum of money. I do not believe that the language which the Attorney-General has chosen will achieve that purpose.
I take the example of a defendant whose gross income is £2,700 and I assume that he has won an action which has cost him £500 to defend. If he has to find £500 out of his own pocket, with a gross income of £2,700, is he then faced with severe financial hardship or is he not? It is very difficult to answer the question.
5.30 p.m.
If an action were brought against a Member of Parliament who had no other means than his Parliamentary salary, and the costs he was put to were £200 or £300, he would probably not be faced with bankruptcy, but his budget would be greatly disturbed. It would, I suppose, necessitate his changing, for some considerable number of months, his manner of life, affecting his summer holiday, or whatever it might be. Is that a situation in which he would be faced with severe financial hardship? Who on earth is to answer that question? Imagine any judge doing his best with that sort of test and trying to answer whether, in those assumed circumstances, a person of modest means was faced with severe financial hardship.
Considering the language which the Attorney-General has chosen, I should think that most judges, if they had to interpret it, would think that the financial hardship was not severe unless the successful defendant, having to find costs, were faced with something near bankruptcy, unless he had to find a sum of money the production of which would involve him, substantially, in insolvency. It seems, to me that most judges, if they had to say whether a debt faced a person with severe financial hardship, would say that the hardship was severe only if the circumstances were such that the finding of the money in question would, virtually, wreck the individual. Then, of course, it would be severe financial hardship, but in cases falling short of that the question is really impossible to answer.
I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, if he leaves the Bill as it it, it is likely that it will fail of its purpose. It is likely that very large numbers of people whose means are modest, with incomes within the range of, say, £2,500 and under, will, if they have the costs of an ordinary action to find out of their own pockets, just not get the relief which the Bill is undoubtedly intended to provide.
Although he may well feel difficulty in accepting the Amendment, my plea to the Attorney-General is that he should say to the Committee that he nevertheless recognises that the discussion has thrown up serious difficulties and has demonstrated that there is at least a doubt about whether the Bill, worded as it is, will achieve the purpose which he has in mind. Obviously, its purpose is a humane and sensible one and it would be a very great pity if the Bill, when operated in practice in the courts, were found to provide no relief in a large number of cases in which clearly the relief ought to be available.
The Attorney-General has further stages of the Bill which he can use for the purpose of introducing a change in the language. I do not think that he should just leave out lines 5 and 6, as the Amendment would, but I ask him to cast about, with Parliamentary counsel, to see whether he can find a formula which more nearly approximates to the position in which a person of moderate means finds himself when having to pay

out of his own pocket a sum of money which will disturb his budget in a material way
I am not seeking to protect the large concern which really would not have to worry much over a debt of £500. I am seeking to protect the person of medium means who might well find it a grave inconvenience if he had to inflict upon himself and his family the obligation to cut down their living standards over a considerable number of months in order to find a sum of that sort. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is sympathetic to appeals made to him when he thinks that they are reasonable. I make the earnest appeal to him that he should not commit us to this form of language but that he should take it away again and, before the Report stage or at a later stage, see whether he can improve upon it.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): Despite the persuasive arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I must advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment. During the debate, we have ranged fairly widely and we have had a very useful discussion of many points and some most interesting observations on the Amendment itself.
The Amendment goes very much to the root and purpose of the Bill. If passed, it would remove the test of severe financial hardship as a necessary condition of help being given to the successful unassisted litigant at first instance, [f this gateway were removed, the result would almost certainly be that the vast majority of successful unassisted litigants, whatever their financial position, would look to the State and be entitled to have their costs guaranteed by the State if they could not get them out of their opponents. This would mean that the Bill had a very different purpose indeed.
As was explained on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to try to deal with the anomalous situations which do arise in the course of the administration of the Legal Aid and Advice Act. It is not its purpose to put every citizen in a better position, by guaranteeing that he will be able to recover his costs from the State if he is successful, than he might otherwise be, but only to try to help
where State assistance to one party has caused hardship to the other. This is the difference between acceptance of the Amendment and its rejection by the Committee, which I suggest is the right course.

Mr. Cole: My right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the words he has just used—if I heard him aright—about a great number of successful litigants, whether plaintiffs or defendants, do not quite represent the true position. There is the carefully prepared qualification, which he put in at the end of his remarks, that the other party to the action must have been State-aided in the first instance for this to arise at all.

The Attorney-General: That is quite right, of course. We are discussing only those who find themselves faced with a State-aided litigant. As the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) pointed out, for a great number of years, under the system of litigation which has existed in this country, impecunious plaintiffs have been assisted by someone else, quite properly, and, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, with very great generosity, on many occasions. The defendant in those circumstances has had little chance of recovering his costs. It is proposed now, if the Amendment be accepted, that in the majority of such cases, because of the accident of State assistance rather than private assistance for the plaintiff, the happy defendant should be very much better off by having his costs guaranteed.
If the only limitation were that the courts would have to find that it was just and equitable that a successful unassisted litigant should have his costs, the court would, as has already been said, not really be embarking upon a financial examination of the situation at all. It would say only this: "Here is an insurance company, a very large corporation. It has been sued, and the plaintiff has failed. It will have to pay the costs. It will not get them out of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is just and equitable that it should have the money out of the State".
I submit to the Committee that there are other considerations which the court would not take into account but which the House ought to take into account on the general policy of giving assistance to those who are the unassisted opponents of

legal-aided plaintiffs. Such considerations might very well not be in the minds of judges, who would be considering individual cases and not the general principles and consequences of taking a series of individual decisions.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said on Second Reading, it is very difficult for judges to apply a formula such as "just and equitable" if they have no signpost to indicate the circumstances which they should take into account. I suggest that it is right that Parliament should ensure that general principles and considerations of general policy about the way in which the legal aid fund should operate should be indicated by a signpost to the judges so that they know Parliament's intention.
We are not considering on this Amendment whether the phrase "severe financial hardship" is a happy one or the right one, or whether it can be improved. I will, with permission, say a word about the points raised on this matter by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport. All that we are considering is whether there should be no other qualification than that the judge should think it just and equitable or whether it is right that there should be some other test as to the circumstances in which a successful unassisted litigant should have his costs out of public funds. As I have said, the Amendment would leave the gateway wide open for the vast majority of successful unassisted litigants to be supported out of public funds.
I suggest the following reasons why we should give a signpost to the judges which is more narrow than to ask them to consider whether in the individual case before them it is just and equitable that the successful litigant should have his costs out of public funds. It is not right of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton to say that the only thing that the Government are interested in is the financial aspect. That is important, but I put it as the last consideration, and it is a travesty of my speech on Second Reading to suggest that that was the only argument advanced against the proposal in the Amendment.
The first reason why I suggest that we need a narrower formula is that the wide formula would involve the State in supporting both sides in


numerous cases. Each side would be litigating in the certain knowledge that if it were successful it would be almost bound to recover its costs, which would be paid in full. It is true that there are many cases in which both parties are supported by the State, but they are cases in which both parties are within the limits which qualify them for legal aid, and, therefore, they are people who, according to the rules and regulations, need the support of public funds. Even in those circumstances it sometimes causes a good deal of comment to be made against the legal aid fund that, even though each needs support, two parties are litigating at public expense. But a situation in which one party was in need and the other party, who was not in need, knew that he had a guarantee of his costs provided that he was successful would be a very unhappy one and, as the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) pointed out, it might bring the operation of the legal aid scheme into some disrepute.
The result certainly would be this. First, it would place all unassisted litigants in a far better position than they would have been had there been no legal aid scheme because, long before legal aid was introduced, impecunious plaintiffs could bring actions and defendants had no hope of recovering costs from them even though they were successful. That situation still obtains. Any plaintiff, even though impecunious, who does not need to proceed with legal aid can, and often does, prefer not to pay the charges which, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West pointed out, are frequently quite burdensome for poor people. He prefers to proceed more cheaply and can often do so through private practice. In those circumstances, the mere accident of whether he has chosen to take up his legal aid certificate or has preferred to pay a small sum to get the matter dealt with through a private solicitor would make a difference in the question of whether the defendant was certain to recover costs.

Mr. Hale: There is the reverse situation and I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt with it. Suppose that a comparatively poor person is partially legally assisted in his defence but has had to make a substan-

tial contribution out of his own pocket to the funds of that defence. Under the Bill, will he be reimbursed the amount which came out of his pocket if he succeeds in his defence?

5.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: If an assisted litigant finds himself faced with a plaintiff who is unassisted, the Bill does not enable him to recover anything from public funds, and he cannot get his contributions back. He embarked on the basis that he would make the contribution to the legal aid fund and that, if successful, he would have such remedy as was available against the plaintiff. But, if the plaintiff turns out to be a man of straw, the Bill would not—

Mr. Hale: With respect, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I am talking about a partially assisted litigant who succeeds against an assisted litigant. Can he recover the contribution which he has made out of his very small income—because he is the worst off of all?

The Attorney-General: A person is either legally assisted or not. He may be assisted for part of the proceedings and not for another part. The Bill deals with that situation, because, during the time that he is unassisted, he can treat himself as an unassisted person and benefit from the Bill.

Mr. Abse: The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is one which I sought to make. Is it not possible for severe financial hardship to follow on an assisted defendant who succeeds in his case? My hon. Friend uses the term "partially assisted". I take it that by that he means that the man has made some contribution. Since severe financial hardship could follow on an assisted defendant, why should he be excluded entirely, as he is, from this scheme?

The Attorney-General: When considering the position of the assisted litigant, there is a very careful scale of regulations and an examination is made of his means by the National Assistance Board. Then there is an assessment and an award by the local committee of the amount that should be contributed. I think that, by and large, in making those assessments the arrange-


ments for disregards of the house and assets and many of the other matters means that, while the amount which most people are asked to contribute to the legal aid fund while assisted can be quite a burden, it would not be an exceptional financial hardship because the scale of contribution by the assisted person is intended to be gauged to his capacity to pay and it is usually very closely allied to the reality of his situation. If he finds it too heavy, it is usually because something has gone wrong in the method of assessment or there has been a failure to take account of the disregards.
I return to the Amendment and to a consideration of the factors which should persuade the Committee to reject the Amendment and not to make the provisions of the Bill too widely available to successful unassisted litigants. The hon. Member for Pontypool made the point that settlements, particularly in small actions, would be greatly discouraged. It is in the public interest that there should be moderation in litigation, and it is very desirable that solicitors should, at an early stage in the proceedings, get on the telephone to each other and find out whether they can sensibly settle the case. I have no doubt that the consequences, particularly in certain types of litigation in which a man knows that, if successful, his client is bound to receive the whole of his costs, may greatly diminish the number of settlements in cases which should properly be settled.
There is a public interest, however harsh it may seem, that some pressure—not too heavy, but some—as to costs should be applied to induce people to settle and not litigate, particularly when both are doing so on the basis that whoever wins will get the whole of the stake.
Thirdly, it will encourage local committees to grant legal aid more freely in the expectation that, if a mistake is made, no harm will have been done because it will be certain that the successful opponent will get his costs from the State. I know that this will not operate consciously upon members of local committees, who will, of course, continue to give very careful attention to cases before granting certificates, but I think that, unconsciously, it might lead them to think that it does not mat-

ter so much whether a certificate is granted because the defendant, if he succeeds, will be able to recover his costs from the Legal Aid Fund.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What is not clear to me is why my right hon. and learned Friend assumes that the successful defendant will get the whole of his costs, because paragraph 1(1) says quite clearly
…to the unassisted party out of the legal aid fund of the whole or any part of the costs incurred by him in those proceedings.
It is not apparent to me why my right hon. and learned Friend assumes that the court will, in almost every case, grant the whole of the costs to the defendant when that provision specifically states:
…the whole or any part of the costs…

The Attorney-General: Of course, if any party has private funds, it is normal procedure to give half the costs, and the court can make an order that that half shall be paid out of public funds. There are many cases in which, for one reason or another, a party is not wholly successful. He will not, therefore, be in the position in which the courts would consider that he should have the whole of his costs met by the Legal Aid Fund.
The fourth reason which I suggest supports the view that a narrower construction should be applied is the one that involves the cost to the Exchequer. It would, indeed, involve a very heavy additional charge on public funds if we were to pass this Amendment. I said on Second Reading that it was estimated that the cost of the provisions of the Bill, if it remained unamended, would be about £55,000. This is, of course, a problematical figure and is best estimated by those connected with the Legal Aid Fund who know the number of cases, the rate at which they are successful and the general cost of litigation.
But in all these figures there is an imponderable, and £55,000 is the best total estimate that can be given. It might vary quite widely in any direction. For instance, if a case proved very expensive and an order was made under this Bill the total figure for that year might be more than double.
I also told the House on Second Reading that the cost, if this restriction were removed, would rise probably to about


£340,000. I should explain that that was a figure that had been calculated some time ago. It has been reconsidered and some additional factors taken into account. It was thought at one time, as a result of the recalculation, that the cost might be very much higher but, as a result of certain set-offs—for instance, that divorce will be very largely the area in which the Bill will operate and that successful unassisted husbands in any event are not entitled to their costs—I think probably the estimate I gave is not far wrong. Again, however, I should not like to say whether it will be higher or lower because the calculation contains so many imponderables that it would be quite unreal to pretend to give anything like a precise figure.
The difference between passing this Amendment and rejecting it lies between £55,000 and over £300,000. That is a major consideration when one considers the rising cost of the Legal Aid Scheme and, as has been said, the very many purposes for which benefits could be given—perhaps more worthwhile purposes—under the legal aid scheme.
One must also remember that a substantial part of those affected, apart from those in the divorce division, will be defendants in the Queen's Bench Division and will include many large and prosperous companies to whom the amount of costs will be infinitesimal. There will also be many cases in which the nature of the action is either industrial injury or running down, and again these are cases where almost certainly the defendant will be insured.
Such persons have always been at risk of litigation from impecunious plaintiffs from whom no hope of any sums of money in costs may be expected. It is not right that the State should take over those risks as a special class of case, treated according to the sort of support which the plaintiff has, whether it is private or from the legal aid fund.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would it not be possible, in order to avoid both eventualities, to exclude bodies corporate from the benefits of these provisions in courts of first instance and bodies non-corporate—individuals—who have a contract of indemnity? Surely both these classes could be excluded by a suitably worded provision.

The Attorney-General: I cannot understand why a person who has insured himself against a risk should be excluded from a benefit while someone who has had sufficient wealth to carry his own risk and his own insurance should benefit. I do not see why people who want to carry their own risks and can afford to pay should benefit while those who cannot afford it should not benefit.
We should be getting into very deep waters indeed if we went further in that direction. I do not think that we should consider divisions between one category of this sort and another. In these cases, which will form quite a large part of the total, the risk of the cost of litigation of this sort is generally spread throughout the community.
For instance, manufacturers generally insure against industrial injury costs while motorists are compulsorily insured against claims against them as motorists. Premiums for this are paid to the insurance companies and those who operate these activities run the risk of such litigation. It is not right that they should benefit from the taxpayer's money, especially since many of the taxpayers are not the slightest bit concerned either with motoring or motorists and have no interest in it. On the other hand, as regards a particular class of action, I should have thought it perfectly right that the risks should be continually spread over the community through insurance benefits.
I agree that small actions are also of great importance, and it is necessary to bear in mind that the Bill may bring help to the individual of small means who may not be insured. I should have thought that this was the type of person who would, in every instance, find it easiest to get through the gateway of "severe financial hardship." The more impecunious a person is the greater the burden of even a small quantity of costs may be. Even the moderate cost of defending a case of possession in a county court may be a severe financial hardship to many people who would be left to pay the costs if they could not recover them from an impecunious landlord.
6.0 p.m.
I ought also to point out that the restrictive words do not apply to appellate courts. It was considered that it is


always an unduly severe financial burden to have to go to an appeal court to keep or get a verdict and take the risks of a second round of litigation. Therefore, the appellate courts will have the suggested wider discretion concerning the costs of the appeal.
It is the appellate court which will make the decision concerning the severe financial hardship, as on the costs of first instance, whatever may have been the provisional decision of the court of first instance. That court normally ought not to make a decision as to whether there has been severe financial hardship until it knows that there will be no appeal. If, however, it makes a provisional judgment on that issue before it knows whether there will be an appeal, and if a notice of appeal is put in and the appeal is pursued, it will be the appellate court which will take the decision as to severe financial hardship in regard to the costs incurred at first instance.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West raised an interesting point, which does not particularly arise, perhaps, under the Amendment, about how the costs would be assessed and whether he would want to disclose some of the financial debts that his clients had incurred in the lighter side of their lives. Why they should want to disclose those to their wives and to nobody else, I do not know. I should have thought that it would be the other way round.

Mr. Hale: The operative word is "commitments". I recall, as will the Attorney-General, the case of the gentleman who was shy about his commitments and said that he could not keep the obligation because of his commitments and who, finally, was compelled to disclose that he had a Rolls-Royce and a steam yacht on the hire purchase and mistresses on a day-to-day basis.

The Attorney-General: That gentleman, no doubt, would be able to persuade the court that there were so many details that he did not need to detain the judge and that the judge had better remit the matter for the Master or Registrar to consider.
The Bill provides that these matters can be discussed before the Master or the Registrar. While the proceedings would not be in camera, they do not usually attract much publicity. After

all, we conduct our litigation in public and this is, on many occasions, one of the disadvantages of having public litigation. Its advantages, however, are always thought to outweigh the disadvantages that from time to time arise.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport and many others raised the question of how the Bill would work without the Amendment. To justify rejection of the Amendment, I ought to say a word about that. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has consulted the judges, including the judges of all the divisions of the High Court, and he has every reason to suppose that they will be able satisfactorily to operate the provisions of the Bill as they stand. It gives them a good deal of latitude. It is intended, and the Bill points clearly to the fact, that help should be given in the very hard cases. The phrase used is "severe financial hardship". That is what the Bill is intended to do.
It is exceedingly difficult to choose the right words. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport asked whether I would consider other words. Either one chooses other quite general words, which would create just the same difficulties and precisely the same problems as to how they would be applied by the judges, or one must lay down an elaborate code stating what are to be the disregards, what is to be allowed for each child and how to deal with capital, with income, with tax, with chattels, business and trust interests and every other sort of thing, and strike a balance in accordance with those regulations, then take a percentage of the balance and say whether somebody is one side or the other.
In view of the infinite variety of human circumstances, it would be impossible to devise a code which could be laid down with any satisfaction that would not create injustice. Therefore, it was thought better, while having what is, admittedly, some restraint or restriction, to have a phrase which, it was thought, the judges would be able to apply fairly satisfactorily. I do not want to descend to details, but I was asked what was the situation in regard to numbers of figures almost all of which were marginal. Some of them were plainly severe financial hardship, and there will always be an area in


which it is plain that it would be a severe financial hardship. There are bound to be other cases where the matter would be marginal.
I would, however, think that any reasonable judge would have asked himself, "Suppose that my net income was that of the successful unassisted litigant and I was asked to put my hand in my pocket and produce that sum of money, would I call it a severe financial hardship?" On that test, I would imagine that it would soon become apparent from the practice of the judges that the phrase deals with the cases that should be dealt with.
I do not wish to descend to figures, and anything which I say would be only my own judgment and would have nothing whatever to do with the way in which the judges might approach the matter. I would, however, think that a man with a net income of £2,750 a year who had to find £500 from his pocket, particularly if he had a wife and family, would certainly suffer severe financial hardship and that almost anybody would have described it as a severe financial hardship. As I have pointed out, the smaller the income of individuals, the less margin they have for spare cash. The more likely they are, therefore, to succeed in persuading a court that it would be a severe financial hardship for them to meet any costs.
The right hon. and learned Member suggested that the right test was whether a person of moderate means was having his annual budget disturbed in a material sense. Although that is not written into the Bill, I accept it as a good test of the way in which the test of severe financial hardship should be applied and the way in which, I hope, the judges would apply it.
All I can recommend to the Committee is that we should not pass the Amendment. We should leave the phrase in the Clause and see how it operates, watch the practice and experience of the judges and the way in which they apply it and later, if it proves to be unsatisfactory, amend it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There are still a number of things about which I am unhappy. One which has not been mentioned is that there is, I understand, no appeal against an interpretation of

"severe financial hardship" which differs greatly from that given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. If a county court judge interprets it completely differently, the successful defendant who is denied costs has no appeal from that. He or she has "had it".
Secondly, the test offered by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) could much more correctly be described as a test of financial hardship than as a test of severe financial hardship. If the test which the right hon. and learned Member suggests is really a test of severe financial hardship, the word "severe" in that case is redundant.
In such cases as I have read, the courts often assume, with logic, that if a word is written in it is used for a purpose. If "severe" is added to "financial hardship", it is, presumably, included to accentuate the degree of hardship which has to be established before an order for even part of the costs can be made. It seems to me that potentially we would be opening the door to the same sort of criticism of allowances for costs as exists for the penalties imposed by differing benches for motoring offences, for example, It is generally agreed that this is an evil, but it is not quite so easy to see how one can overcome it.
I am particularly concerned with the private individual and just as concerned about him in the county court on a lower scale as someone of great financial substance in the High Court. My own view is that much too much emphasis has been given to the obsession with insurance companies. If one says that the reason that they should not get any benefit out of these provisions is that they are very wealthy, that is surely establishing; the principle of one law for the rich and another for the poor rather than endeavouring to diminish it. Without doubt, the original Legal Aid Act remedied a large range of injustices. What is also undeniable is that it produced another range of injustices, a much smaller range and injustices of less magnitude, but we must recognise that it did produce injustices which had not previously existed. The Bill is introduced in recognition of that with the objective of reducing as far as pos-


sible the injustices which the Legal Aid scheme brought in as bedfellows to those which it had eliminated. The question therefore is whether the Bill without Amendment has eliminated as many of the possible injustices as it reasonably could.
I seem to be very much in the minority in believing that it has not and that it would be a much better Bill if the Amendment were accepted. Possibly because I am not a lawyer, I still do not understand why the words do not mean what they say when they say:
An order may be made under this section in respect of any costs if (and only if) the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable in all the circumstances that provision for those costs should be made out of public funds.
I am most interested to learn from gentlemen learned in the law that these words evidently do not mean and are not intended to mean what they say and that they are not intended to mean "just and equitable in all the circumstances", but only that if a party successfully defends an action, he can get costs.
If the interpretation of my right hon. and learned Friend and other learned Gentlemen, that that is all the words mean, is correct, in appeal actions and in actions before the House of Lords the Bill will not do what my right hon. and learned Friend thinks it will. If all he wanted it to do was to ensure that in an appeal action the successful defendant could get costs, the Clause could have been phrased with much greater simplicity. As it has been very carefully phrased as it has, presumably that has been done with some purpose. What my right hon. and learned Friend has not told us is what that purpose is.

Mr. Hale: I sympathise very much with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he is being a little unfair about a remark which I think he is attributing to me and which I made about "just and equitable". I said that different tests were being made. Financial tests, clearly, cannot be made and he has just given his own argument when he says that unless Parliament says so, we cannot say that the rich man is not to have as much as a poor man would. "Just and equitable" might apply to the nature of the proceedings and to whether

they were vexatious or unconscionably pursued and so on, rather than to hardship. This is what I said, rightly or wrongly.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I agree, but surely that is a case of a conception which not everybody may have—that, by and large, if an action is successfully defended, the defendant should not have to stand the costs of that successful defence. This may well be a principle which is not universally held. However, I once had the curiosity to look into these matters when I discovered that there was something called "champerty and maintenance" which allowed people to get damages against another person who had supported a third party in an action.
I do not think that it is stressing things too far, except in the case of motoring, to say that in the circumstances which we are discussing the State is backing one litigant. If this were a private person doing so with intent to damage the defendant, I am told that the defendant would be entitled to recover damages, or, if not now, at some stage would have been, for champerty and maintenance—

Mr. Hale: Not champerty.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Maintenance in the non-matrimonial sense—against the person who backed the plaintiff.
Under the Legal Aid Scheme, the State has put itself into the position—I think quite rightly and I do not criticise this—of selecting certain of its subjects and backing them in a legal action against others of its subjects. The principle to which I strongly adhere is that if it does that and does not succeed in proving the case which it has backed, it should reimburse the successful defendant. If it is held that the reason that the case has been lost is that there was inadequate evidence to prove it, one of two propositions must be true: either the case should not have been brought in the first place, or greater diligence in securing witnesses should have been shown by counsel or solicitors for a legally-aided plaintiff. There is no third alternative which excludes the possibility that the defendant is also a subject and equally entitled to the protection of the State.
Having delivered myself of those observations, it seems to me to be obvious that they are not widely shared in this particularly thinly-populated Chamber, and, therefore, it would be purposeless to carry the Amendment to a Division, which I had every intention of doing. Nevertheless, I am still extremely unhappy about this. I am apprehensive not so much about how High Court judges will interpret this extremely offensive restriction as about how county court judges will interpret it. I know not whether there is any machinery by which advice on this matter can be given. If there is no such machinery, solicitors will be in the position of not knowing what advice to give to their clients when deciding whether to defend an action against a legally-aided person until a considerable volume of case law has been built up.
6.15 p.m.
Lastly, when it is said that insurance companies are rich, let us remember that if this proposition is true it is true only because they raise considerable premiums from very many people. This has caused something approaching hardship to very many not very well off people who have had to pay increased insurance premiums over the last year or 18 months. When it is said that insurance companies do not need the same kind of justice as other citizens pleading before the court, this also means that the people paying their annual premiums to insurance companies, as they have to do under the Road Traffic Acts, must be selected as the people to bear the burden in this case.
This proposition in a modified form was put by my right hon. and learned Friend when he said that the general body of motorists, rather than people who were not motorists, should finance

the expenses of insurance companies when they successfully defended an action. Since whether one is a motorist or not is scarcely a function of wealth but much more of whether a car is needed to do one's job, this is a somewhat bizarre test which it is difficult to substantiate.
We come back to the original question of principle of whether the person who successfully defends an action brought against him with the maintenance—the assistance—of the State should be left to bear the whole of his own costs, unless he is also in receipt of legal aid. The debate has produced a much wider range of hard cases than I imagined when I tabled the Amendment.
I certainly had not in my mind the case of the legally aided defendant who also cannot get costs in this case. I must, therefore, express the hope that once we have seen how the Bill works in practice, and if it works in the way in which I fear it will work, both unpredictably and harshly—harshly because of the inclusion of the word "severe" in addition to hardship—it will not be 14 years, or even 14 months, before remedial action is taken.
I do not know what is the total cost to the taxpayer of getting a Bill through both Houses of Parliament, but I suspect that it compares very unfavourably with what would have been the cost of accepting this Amendment. With those words, and with what, I admit, is exceedingly ill-grace, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SHIPBUILDING CREDIT [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to enable the Minister of Transport to make loans for the purpose of providing finance for the construction or alteration of ships in shipyards situated in the United Kingdom, any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and the equipment of the resulting ships, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums not exceeding seventy-five million pounds to enable that Minister to make loans under the said Act;
(b) the borrowing of money for the purposes of the said Act in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act 1939;
(c) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by that Minister and any sums required by him for making repayments of fees and other incidental sums received by him in connection with loans made or to be made under the said Act;
(d) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the said Act, and the re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such of those sums as fall to be so re-issued by virtue of the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SHIPBUILDING CREDIT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO MAKE LOANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION OF SHIPS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We said on Second Reading that we welcome this Measure, but we also said that there were one or two Committee points which we wished to raise on this Clause.
On Second Reading, the Minister made the point that the Bill will provide a breathing space for the shipbuilding industry. I would very briefly refer to this point. If the purpose of the Bill is to provide this breathing space, I would re-emphasise that there is a responsibility on the right hon. Gentleman's Department to promote energetically action in the industry. I felt that

when we were discussing the Bill, he too easily took the view that this was a matter that could be left to the industry.
I am delighted to see that our debate has had an immediate response. The Minister for Science has announced that the aid to the B.S.R.A. has been increased. That is a welcome improvement. But I would emphasise that if we compare British shipbuilding with the shipbuilding in other countries, the Government have to take a view similar to that taken in other countries and be prepared to give a lead in seeing that the sort of measures we discussed on Second Reading are taken during this breathing space.
The other point to which we wished to return on this Clause was the sum of £75 million. I would emphasise—I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will be with me in emphasising this—that this is not a subsidy to the industry. What the Government are doing, at very little expense to the taxpayer, is providing good credit facilities to this amount. I emphasise this because it affects the sum that I have in mind. It is not a question of making a subsidy to the industry, but affording the industry the benefit of Government credit.
The right hon. Gentleman is certain that £75 million is the right sort of sum. I have conceded, and will concede again, that it is important to get the sum right. If the sum is not right, we may very well get a position in which orders are held back because it is believed that the Government are wrong and will have to revise their opinions. That would be unfortunate for the industry in its present position.
It is conceded on both sides that this is merely a breathing space. If the breathing space is to afford a proper opportunity to the industry, we do not want any withholding of orders because mistakenly the industry feels that the Government are likely to revise their view. I feel that the Government have not got the figure right for two reasons.
I can put it simply in the case of my own constituency. Unfortunately, this week, 300 men have been paid off at Short's yard on the Wear. I do not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to say that the purpose of the Bill


is to provide security of employment for all men in the shipyards. It is to give aid to the shipyards to help them over their present difficulties. I quote this case as an example, because we have to realise that when we talk about these orders which have been attracted by these facilities being unevenly spread this very much affects the shipbuilding capacity which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
This is why I think that my hon. Friends were quite right in asking for more particulars and information about the way in which the £75 million was spread. If this is sufficiently unevenly spread, it could mean the taking of a very gloomy view indeed in the shipbuilding industry. I call attention to my own constituency, because it is well known that the Wear yards have done very well indeed out of the Government's scheme. Nevertheless, it so happens that at the time we are discussing this Bill one of our own family yards is in very great difficulties and will not, it appears, receive benefit from the scheme. I think that we should know something more about the way in which this is unevenly spread. That is the first factor which disturbs me when considering this Clause.
The other factor is this. It is one which I mentioned on Second Reading. We should have some better view of what the Government's estimate is of the likely capacity of British shipbuilding. This is very important, because we have just received the latest Lloyd's returns and they show that for the second time since the war we have fallen into third place. We were behind Japan, but now we are behind West Germany, which has had a bad year. We have fallen below 1 million tons. It is against that background that the Government have provided their aid, and although they are providing welcome aid they are providing it at a low level, and I do not think that we can lightly accept what they have done.
The amount of aid to be provided is welcome, but it may very well conceal the fact that it is being provided for a limited capacity, if we consider British ship building as a whole. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the future outlook, we must remember that this is temporary aid and that the Government are accepting an appreciable fall in the level of British shipbuilding.
I hope that before we agree to the Clause the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us somewhat on those two misgivings.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I, too, am worried about the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I am worried about this being temporary aid. This is a piece of temporary legislation to help the shipbuilding industry, which has been passing through a difficult period, and I have no doubt that if we get a recurrence of the situation which has existed in the industry for the last four years we shall have another piece of legislation similar to this, to provide more temporary aid.
I believe that in view of the high capital cost of ship construction, the difficulties of trading throughout the world, and the barriers that are being put up everywhere due to all sorts of practices by various foreign Governments, the time has come for this island, which depends so much on the carrying trade, and on heavy import and export business, to review the present set-up, and for the Government to become a partner in shipbuilding and to become, albeit to a limited extent, the financiers of shipbuilding.
During the Second Reading debate I made it clear that even on this temporary basis I am glad the Government are acting as the financiers behind British shipbuilding, because there is no doubt that the ordinary commercial channels of financing cannot provide money for our shipbuilding industry in competition with the Government financing which takes place among our competitors abroad.
From time to time hon. Members on both sides of the House suggest that we should retaliate against foreign shipbuilders, or against the practices adopted by Governments abroad, but it is very difficult for a country like ours to indulge in retaliatory practices. We are a trading nation, and if we start retaliating we may do ourselves more damage than we do to our competitors. I think it right that we should make public what we are doing to sustain our shipbuilding industry at what we think is the proper level.
Clause 1(b) refers to
the alteration of such a ship, whether the alteration is designed to convert it into a different kind of ship or not.
The Clause says that money may be provided
for the purpose…of the equipment of the resulting ship.
I am concerned about that, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is in the Chamber, because I know that he, too, is deeply concerned about the problem which I now propose to discuss.
The Scottish pottery industry is centred at Barrhead and Renfrew. Though it supplies all sorts of china and porcelain equipment. Stoke, is of course, the great pottery centre of the country. This industry may well be required to equip passenger liners with various items. I hope that those who contract to supply porcelain and pottery to be used in such ships will benefit by the provisions of the Bill, and that it will not be possible for a shipbuilder to build the hull and engine of a ship on the Clyde—whichis, naturally the area which should receive the first priority—with the help of a loan at a low rate of interest—which is in a sense a hidden subsidy, but I have no objection to that because if we know where they are being given they are not hidden subsidies—

Mr. Paul Williams: Surely the whole point is that it is not a hidden subsidy. If it were a subsidy, we might run into trouble with G.A.T.T.

Mr. Bence: From time to time we are told that if an arrangement is made whereby loans are given at a lower rate of interest than that paid on ordinary commercial borrowings, that is, in effect, a hidden subsidy. I do not accept that view, but that is what we have been told time and again by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when we have asked for money at a low rate of interest for social purposes.
I was about to ask whether it would be possible for a shipbuilder who contracted to fit out a vessel to subcontract to a foreign contractor to supply the pottery and porcelain equipment required for the ship. It seems to me

that those who take advantage of this credit provided by the State to build a ship in a British shipyard should ensure that everything that goes into the ship is manufactured in Britain. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that certain specialised equipment which goes into a ship cannot be obtained in this country, and has to be obtained from abroad.
There is then the problem that propulsion machinery is sometimes manufactured in this country under licence, and the licence fee has to be paid to an inventor, or to the person who has the patent rights, in another country. I think that that situation arises in respect of the Sultzer diesel engine. Will the Clause as it stands inhibit a shipbuilder from going to sources outside the United Kingdom, not for the ship itself, but for the hardware that is required for it?
A few years ago I was told that if a big passenger liner was built on the Clyde, 38 per cent. of it would be constructed in the Midlands and notin the shipyard at all. If 38 per cent. of a ship is built elsewhere than in the shipyard, by someone other than the builder who has the contract for the ship, as subsection (b) refers only to the alteration of a ship, it seems possible that a builder will be able to obtain his equipment from other than a British engineering works or pottery. It would be unfair if, having received a loan under the Bill to build a large passenger liner, a builder could equip that ship with a few thousand pounds worth of pottery bought in Holland, or in Czechoslovakia, or in Germany.
I should have thought that the Bill would apply not only to the ships which are built or repaired in Britain, but also to everything that goes into them. I should have thought that all these things would have to emanate from British sources. I hope that I shall receive a satisfactory assurance on this point. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to put it on record that everything that goes into ships which are built under these terms, and upon Government credit, will be manufactured and provided from British sources.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I hope not to detain the Committee for too long, because the subject of the Adjournment debate is of great importance to me. That is a testimony to my sincerity in rising on this occasion.
Since the Second Reading debate and the debate on the Money Resolution most of us have had time to go back to our constituencies and to consult our many friends among employers and workers in the industry. I find that none of them is very happy about the Bill, despite what was said by the Minister and his able Parliamentary Secretary during the earlier proceedings.
The Money Resolution has been drawn so tightly that we have been virtually prevented from making any Amendments. The major concern of many managers and men is not that the Bill is a bad Bill, but that its effect has almost expired. During the long series of arguments on the Money Resolution—and in my opinion the Financial Secretary did not do very well on that occasion; we had to pull the figures out of him, as though we were dentists, pulling teeth from a reluctant patient's mouth, one by one; the extractions took place punctuated by long arguments, until we finally got a figure—we were told that the loans under Clause 1 amounted to £75 million. But £73·8 million has been committed, and £17·6 million of that has been allocated to the construction of the Q4—the new Cunarder.
I should like to know what will happen if, like the unfortunate Q3 the Q4 does not materialise. Can we take it that the £17·6 million will be made available for fresh applications, or outstanding applications which have fallen foul of the bar on all loansapplied for after 31st May, 1964? There is some concern about this, because many shipbuilders have not done as well out of the Bill as they hoped. The money has not been spread evenly throughout the industry, although my constituency—and I believe that this is true of all the Clyde—has done reasonably well from the distribution of orders. That reminds me of a point which I should raise with the Parliamentary Secretary.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned that there has been a reasonably fair distribution of orders. Can he tell us the respective shares of the orders falling under the credit scheme which were attributable to each of the major shipbuilding rivers of the United Kingdom? It would be interesting to know the figures. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us that the Scottish share

represented about one-third. I do not know whether that is Scotland's capacity. I thought that it was two-fifths, but I do not wish to be niggling about the fractional difference between two-fifths and two-sixths, although it represents a significant sum of money when considered as a proportion of £75 million. I should like to know what will happen if there are no successful tenders or if the company concerned decided not to build the Q4.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether it will be possible for the successors to this Government to repeat the procedure which was followed in respect of the Bill? The present Minister—who may not be a Minister very much longer—hassaid that this is a once-for-all gesture. I should like to know, however, whether the same procedure will remain open for a new Minister in a new Government. Would it be possible for him to make an announcement in Parliament in May, to the effect that he intends to operate a credit scheme; then to ask for applications to that credit scheme; then to collect the money before Parliamentary sanction is given, and then to close the scheme within twelve months of his original announcement? That would be a delightful exercise for the next Labour Government to perform, if the shipbuilding industry is to face the difficulties which we expect to arise after the spring of 1965 unless freight rates continue to rise, as I hope they will.
I am concerned at the fact that we have not widened the Clause or the Bill so as to give the Government and their successors adequate room for manoeuvre, and to give the shipbuilding industry what is only its right in these difficult times of international competition.

6.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett).: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) told us that he thought that it was the duty of the Government to take energetic steps to promote efficiency in the shipbuilding industry. I do not altogether dispute that, so long as active interference in the affairs of the industry is not included in the meaning of the word


"promote". We try to work in partnership with the industry, and we do our best to assist it in any way we can, by advice, and so forth.
The hon. Member went on to express doubt—as other hon. Members have—whether £75 million was the correct figure. I shall return to that point later. In that context he quoted the laying off of men from a certain shipyard. I must point out that we shall not necessarily promote the efficiency of the shipbuilding industry as a whole if we embark upon the enterprise of trying to protect and prolong the life of individual yards. I have said this several times before. It may be rather a hard thing to say, but the fact remains, as my right hon. Friend pointed out at length in the Second Reading debate, that one of the dangers of a scheme of this nature—a danger which has been openly referred to in the Press by some leaders in the industry—was that it might unduly prolong the life of yards which otherwise would have closed.
In the main, that has not occurred. With negligible exceptions, orders have been placed in yards that we feel satisfied are good yards, which are likely to survive and continue to make a contribution to the health and efficiency of the industry.
The hon. Member also asked about the likely capacity of the industry. I should be out of order if I attempted to deal with that question in detail, but I want to refer to one point that the hon. Member made arising out of the question which is relevant to this loans scheme. He referred to the recent figures of completions and said that they showed that this country had fallen back to third place. So it may have done; but we should not fix our eyes on completions. They are in the past. What we should be watching are the orders, and it is largely owing to the way in which the scheme has been working, and in which the money has been distributed—as the hon. Member will find if he studies the order books all over the world for 1963—that this country comes out, relatively, very much better than it did in the three previous years.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was worried about the temporary nature of the scheme, and

he asked whether it could be made permanent. That could not be done under the Bill. But surely he is not suggesting that it should be made permanent. It would be difficult and invidious to single out one industry and to say that a perpetual loans scheme of the kind set up by this Bill should be applied. However, I should be out of order if I attempted to enlarge upon that point. He asked whether these loans—

Mr. Bence: But we have the Railway Finance Corporation and the Agricultural Finance Corporation. There are arrangements regarding the aircraft industry and the cotton industry.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Surely we do not want to have shipbuilding and shipping join the queue of industries which the taxpayer has to support for ever and ever.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether these loans could be applied to ships in which the shipbuilders or owners required that components, or some of the components, should be ordered outside Britain. The answer is "Yes". We did not think it practicable to insist that all the small components should necessarily come from this country.

Mr. Bence: Why not?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is not practicable as I am sure the hon. Gentleman—who knows a good deal about the industry—will appreciate. In the component business there is, if I may use the term, a tremendous amount of "cross-fertilisation". A large number of the components put in the ships, the orders for which we have lost—and which may have gone to Sweden—are ordered in this country and vice versa. Particular shipowners have got into the habit of having certain types of components in their ships and if we tried to dictate what components had to come from Britain, what would happen would be that some orders would not be placed here.
As I explained on Second Reading, loans will not be attracted for the main engines unless they are made in Britain. We do not insist on the engines being ordered in Britain. But we say that if they are not, and as this represents such a big percentage of the total value of a ship, we shall not apply the loans.


I understand that three ships have been ordered for which the engines are coming from abroad.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) suggested that people in the industry were disappointed that the figure in this Clause is not larger. They would not be human if they were not disappointed. That is to be expected and I do not take it amiss.
The hon. Gentleman asked—it is relevant to this Clause—what would happen if the Q4 is not built. Theoretically, of course, if the building of the Q4 were called off before the date in the Clause arrives, further loans could be made. But the position is not quite the same as with the Q3 because approximately £250,000 has been paid in fees by the Cunard Company and so it would think twice before abandoning the project at this stage. There is quite a lot of money at stake.
But the answer to the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical question, so far as I can give it, is that I do not think we should make any attempt to offer loans for the ordinary commercial ships for a reason which I shall explain when I answer the main question put by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North about how we arrived at the figure of £75 million.
The hon. Member for Greenock asked whether the procedure remains open and the answer is that it does not under this Bill. He asked whether it could be repeated. It could be repeated if any subsequent Minister, or Parliament, decided to do so, and obtained the necessary support. The hon. Gentleman was not correct when he said that there was no parliamentary sanction for what has been done. If he reads the special "Shipbuilding Loans" subhead in the Supplementary Estimates of the Ministry of Transport for the current financial year, he will find that it contains a footnote clearly setting forth the intention. Perhaps I should say that the Vote authorised the administrative expenditure to enable the scheme to be started and the footnote made clear that this was intended to enable my right hon. Friend to make these loans. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Parliament passed that Estimate.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In the footnote there was no indication of the size of

the credit to be given. When Parliament voted the Estimate hon. Members were not aware that it meant voting £30 million, as was first announced by the Minister, and later £60 million and finally £75 million. It is a rather strange reflection to make on the control of Parliament over Government spending.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: But as was said during the Second Reading debate, it would have been open to any hon. Member—including the hon. Member for Greenock—to have put down a Motion asking us to stop offering the loans.
I wish now to come to the main question, whether £75 million is the right sum to have written into this Clause. My reply, in one word, is, "Yes". We are satisfied that it is the right figure. Let us consider how and what orders have been generated, first in terms of money. At the moment, the loans offered amount to £74,720,000 which is very close to £75 million. A tribute should be paid not only to the advisory committee which advised us on the soundness of the loans we are making, but also to the officials who operated this scheme with such skill that they almost exactly arrived at the total sum of money—with a little modest "queue", in case one or two dropped out.
The loans which have been offered under the Clause have gone for types of ships which I think are of some significance from the point of view of the rightness or wrongness of the scheme. There are 24 bulk carriers of a total gross tonnage of 496,000; eight tankers, which add up to 155,000; 14 cargo liners, 128,000; and 14,500 tons of small vessels. There is also the Q4 of 58,500 tons and a number of small vessels, lighters and miscellaneous which add up to 7,000 tons.
I was asked about distribution to areas of the country and it is as follows. In the North in which I include the North-East and the North-West, there are 382,000 gross tons of orders which have been placed under the scheme. In Scotland, the figure is 288,000 and in Nothern Ireland 94,000. There remain 95,000 tons some of which have been allocated to other areas, but most have not yet been allocated.
The way the work will progress is again relevant to the Tightness or


wrongness of the figure of £75 million. Up to the end of December, 1963, work under these loans had actually started on nearly 400,000 gross tons. Two ships, totalling 23,000 tons, have been launched and work on a further 250,000 gross tons will start during the first quarter of this year, of which 70,000 tons will start this month. Apart from the Q4, the remaining 140,000 tons will be started in the second quarter of this year and we reckon that 200,000 gross tons will be completed in the current year and 550,000 gross tons will be completed in 1965, leaving 26,000 tons to be finished in 1966. We expect that the Q4 will be started at about the turn of this year and that she will be completed in 1967.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we arrived at this figure and I will tell him. Originally, we estimated that about £60 million of loan money would be required for ordinary commercial orders to do what we wanted to do, which was to restore the level of orders to the average to give the industry a breathing space. As it turned out we were not far wrong. If we exclude the Q4, the amount of the loans totals just under £60 million. The total order book last year was just over 1½ million tons—which is a little over, but not very much over, what the Committee which considered this matter in 1961 estimated as a proper and normal rate at which the industry might expect to work.
7.0 p.m.
My right hon. Friend, when we first announced the loan scheme, referred to £30 million. I shall be frank with the Committee. We did that because we had very conflicting advice on how the scheme would pan out. Eminent people thought that practically none of these loans would be taken up. We thought it would be unwise to start with a great flourish of trumpets and to say that £60 million would be available and then find that nothing was subscribed. When my right hon. Friend made his announcement he left the House in no doubt that if there were a demand for more, more would be available and the figure was later raised to £60 million.
Then came the, in some ways rather unexpected, request by the Cunard

Company for a loan under this scheme. Before that it had put forward proposals which we thought quite unacceptable. The company had second thoughts when the scheme was published and came to the conclusion that it would be prepared to complete the Q4 under the terms of the scheme. The necessary processes were gone through and a loan was offered and accepted. We thought it right to raise the figure to £75 million so as to restore the amount for normal commercial ordering. That is why this is in the scheme although it is outside the special object for which the scheme was started. It was included in the scheme as a convenient way of saving the necessity to come to the House with yet another North Atlantic Shipping Bill.
That is how we arrived at the figure of £75 million, which we believe is about right. Of course, we do not pretend that these loans and this scheme will solve the industry's long-term problem, but they will help and we believe they will give the industry time in which it can solve that problem for itself.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I wish to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a question, because I do not understand the logic. He said that the Minister was right in saying that the industry would have to shrink to its right size and shape. I take it that that means it must be smaller than 1½ million tons for which the £75 million has been provided.
On Second Reading, I asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us what the Government had in mind in regard to the National Economic Development Council and the industry and he then referred to the 1½ million tons. How can the industry "shrink" from 1½ million tons to 1½ million tons as being the right size and shape when this money is provided? I am not splitting hairs. This question is most important for those employed in the yards; they do not want to go out of business.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If I may be allowed to be slightly out of order for a couple of seconds, I said that when my right hon. Friend referred to the capacity of the industry having to shrink, he was speaking of the


theoretical capacity. We estimate that to be much nearer 2 million tons a year than 1½ million tons.

Mr. Willey: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the information that he has given. It is of considerable help. I also appreciate his difficulties in going further. I do not quarrel about this, but we would like to have a further breakdown to express the problem in terms of utilisation of current capacity.
When the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, rightly, talk about contraction, they should not be surprised if they are then pressed to say what contraction they have in mind. In shipbuilding debate after shipbuilding debate we have discussed flexibility. Flexibility depends very much on security and security depends on a long-term view of the industry. I emphasise again that other countries have a much greater sense of security in their shipbuilding industries than we have in this country. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear that in mind.
I make a general comment on what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about the £75 million. I hope that I have made clear from the start that I do not quarrel with the Minister having first said £30 million, then £60 million and then £75 million, but, obviously, when he changed the amount he changed the estimate. When he made the statement about £30 million that was probably right according to the advice he had, but, because this has happened and he has reached the final figure we naturally have some anxiety and want to know if he is right now.
There are two factors I call to his attention. The Minister said—and one would not quarrel with this—that last year it worked out very fortunately. There was an exceptional number of foreign orders which came in in the first six months and affected the position over the full 12 months. I want to know whether we can expect that position to arise again because that would affect the forward view very much. Was it exceptional that those orders Dame in, or were there reasons for thinking that that would be the pattern for the coming year?
The second factor, which is equally important—I confess that I should have pointed it out on Second Reading—is that we are too much apt to refer to this as a year's orders. The purpose of the scheme was to attract forward orders and to bring them within this year's orders. So we have to look at this matter over a period. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would say that we are rather more optimistic than we would have been because the freight position seems to be rather more encouraging. I am not questioning the necessity to reach a final figure, but there is still a little longer time and the Bill has yet to go to another place.
I should like further discussions to take place and the Parliamentary Secretary to consult his advisers to make absolutely sure about this point. We cannot speak with the knowledge and advice which the Parliamentary Secretary has, but we know that the industry has expressed some anxiety. The Parliamentary Secretary will not be surprised about that. It is legitimate that we should pay attention to that. The industry has felt that it has been cut off rather sharply. I do not quarrel about the fact that the money has been spent, but that makes it appear as though the Minister has afforded himself very little slack. I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman to assure us that even with this very limited opportunity he will take advantage of the fact that there is still time and discuss the matter further to see whether there is a case for extending it.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman might have been rather too optimistic and we may have been both optimistic and pessimistic about freight rates, but they have moved very quickly. They have moved quickly in the last two months and we should like to see them move quickly. I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider this question before the Bill becomes law and to give his judgment on it.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Naturally, we watch this question with great interest and anxiety, but I see no reason to suppose that the loans to be given under the Bill will in any way reduce the capacity or the chance of the industry to receive foreign orders—rather the reverse in so far as they will keep


the yards occupied and tend to reduce their overheads.
I repeat—and this is highly relevant to what we are doing—it is wrong to pretend that our industry is uncompetitive over the whole range of ships. It is highly competitive. What we are doing by the Bill is to carry a stage further what we have already done by offering in advance to make loans available. That will not reduce the chances of the industry getting a good volume of foreign orders, and I hope that it will do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SCRAP METAL DEALERS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to dealers in scrap metal and similar goods, and to dealers in marine stores, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Miss Pike.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PRISONS AND BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (RULES)

7.12 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: I beg to move,
That the Prison Rules, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th January, be not made.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that it would be for

the general convenience of the House if we were allowed to discuss at the same time the next Motion:
That the Borstal Institution Rules, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th January, be not made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If that be the wish of the House, so be it.

Miss Bacon: These two sets of rules are extremely important, because they contain the rules for the whole of our prison system. These rules regulate the lives of all the men and women who are in prisons and borstal institutions. This is a rather rare occasion, because it is 15 years since there was a complete set of Prison Rules. The last time they were all enacted together was 1949. Although they have been amended from time to time, on this occasion they are completely rewritten. We welcome the fact that they have been simplified. There are now 101 Prison Rules, instead of 207 in the previous issue.
However, we are disappointed that in essence they are very largely the same. Many of those which some of us consider to be antiquated have not been scrapped and, although they have been simplified, in essence the rules are very much the same.
In some respects one could feel on reading these rules that we were in mediaeval times. The Home Secretary now appears to be much more responsible than he was before for the whole of our prison system. Hitherto we have had Prison Commissioners. In the debate when the Prison Commissioners were absorbed completely into the Home Office the right hon. Gentleman said that he not only wanted to be responsible for our prison system—he wanted to be seen to be responsible. He has now had an opportunity of creating some new Prison Rules.
In general I would criticise these rules on two grounds. I believe that they contain some which ought not to be there. Others sound good but in practice our prisons are such that it is impossible to carry them out. The Prison Rules that are most like this are perhaps, for instance, the new Rule I, which says this—
The purpose of the training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to


encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life.
and Rule 2 (3), which says this:
At all times the treatment of prisoners shall be such as to encourage their self-respect and a sense of personal responsibility, but a prisoner shall not be employed in any disciplinary capacity.
The physical conditions of many prisons today make it absolutely impossible for these two rules to be observed.
With 101 rules before me it would be tempting to make a long speech. However, I shall select just a few rules, because I know that there are many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who wish to express an opinion on these rules. I want next to refer to those which have been changed. On the back page of these Prison Rules there is an explanation of those which have in essence been changed. One of the changes which we welcome is that prisoners are to be allowed to write one letter a week instead of one letter a month. I do not find anywhere in these rules a statement of the conditions governing the sending of letters to Members of Parliament. I know that there are some rules about this, but they are not in these Prison Rules.
Therefore, I should like the Home Secretary to tell us exactly where we can find the rules governing the sending of letters to Members of Parliament.

Mr. William Yates: Will the hon. Lady be certain to mention that, when Members of Parliament visit prisoners, they do not desire the presence of anybody else with them except the prisoner?

Miss Bacon: That is a very good point and I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman manages to catch the eye of the Chair, he will be able to give examples to back up what he has said. There is a new Rule 42 which provides, as the Explanatory Note says—
for the disposal of money and articles sent to a prisoner through the post, and in particular, where the sender is unknown, to allow their application for the benefit of discharged prisoners.
We were told in the Press when the rules were issued last week that the Home Secretary regarded this as a way in which he could defeat the tobacco barons. We do not object to this rule. Anonymous cash gifts sent through the

post to prisoners are probably suspect. However, the right hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken if he thinks this rule will end tobacco barony in prisons. It will need much more than this.
I have been reading recently the very interesting account of Pentonville Prison written by Terence and Pauline Morris after they had spent some months there. They give a detailed account of how the tobacco barons operate. First, they must get the tobacco which, we are informed in this book, is at Pentonville Prison slung over the wall in a nylon stocking and hauled in at the end of a line. Sometimes, and this is regrettable, because I am sure that the majority of prison officers are a fine body of men, an exceptional prison officer himself supplies tobacco to the barons.
The amount of money actually sent into prison for tobacco is an infinitesimal proportion of the amount which is exchanged for the tobacco. What usually happens is that a prisoner will ask his wife to send money to the tobacco baron's wife or to an accommodation address; and the money does not go inside the prison at all. There should be some way of bringing this racketeering to an end. It aways amazes me to think that in prisons, where an example should be set and where, according to these rules, men are sent to be trained to live good and useful lives, there should operate rackets like the tobacco racket and that the tobacco barons should be allowed to terrorise other prisoners. Perhaps the best course would be for the Government to amend Rule 4 and Rule 22(2). Rule 4 states:
There shall be established at every prison systems of privileges approved by the Secretary of State and appropriate to the classes of prisoners there, which shall include arrangements under which money earned by prisoners in prison may be spent by them within the prison.
Rule 22(2) states:
No prisoner shall be allowed to smoke or to have any tobacco except as a privilege under Rule 4 of these Rules and in accordance with any orders of the governor.
Prisoners earn precious little for their work. If these rules were liberalised and prisoners were allowed to spend their meagre earnings in the way they wished, I believe that we should not get so much of this tobacco baroning.
The most important changes are Rules 51 and 52 relating to punishments. By these there is an increase in the powers of visiting committees to award punishments. For any one offence solitary confinement by these new rules is increased from 28 to 56 days. The Home Secretary of late has been trying to appear more liberal-minded and more of a reformer. I think that he has been trying to change his image. If so, these new rules are most extraordinary, because at one stretch prisoners can now be given solitary confinement for eight instead of four weeks. The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, according to the Press last week, is that this is a method of reducing corporal punishment—that there is nothing between 28 days' solitary confinement and corporal punishment.
I find that a strange argument. We might as well argue that there is nothing between 56 days' solitary confinement and corporal punishment and that, because of that, to reduce corporal punishment still more we should double the number of days again and make it 112 days' solitary confinement. I very much regret the increase in solitary confinement in this way.
Prison life is bad enough, but to think of being confined in a small cell for a whole month at a time is something most of us cannot even contemplate. In addition to new Rules 51 and 52, we find Rule 43(2). Rule 43 is headed "Removal from association" and under this a prisoner can be removed from association other than under Rules 51 and 52. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) recently brought to the attention of the House the example of the prisoner Madsen who had been in solitary confinement in 1962 for seven months and in 1963 for six months. This was not under the rules that now will be Rules 51 and 52, but under Rule 43(2) and under the heading "Removal from association".
I should like the Home Secretary to explain exactly how these two separate rules work and, although there is a maximum of 56 days' solitary confinement for one offence, it still seems possible under Rule 43(2) for prisoners to be out of association for a longer period.
I wish to refer now to some of the other disciplinary rules, particularly the one

headed "Restricted diet", which is Rule 55. This one makes me think that we are living in mediaeval times, for it states:
The food and drink to be given to a prisoner under an award of restricted diet shall be in—

(a) on the first 3 days of the period of restricted diet, one pound of bread each day and sufficient water;
(b) on the next 3 days of the period, food and drink as ordinarily provided for prisoners; and
((c) thereafter in accordance with sub- paragraphs (a) and (b) alternately, by periods of 3 days."
We are living in the twentieth century.

Mr. Sidney Silverman: Are we?

Miss Bacon: Some of us are. Although this general rule is bad enough, we have a similar rule in the rules for borstals. Although it is bad enough for a grown man to be on this diet, it is worse that a teenager in borstal should also be on a diet of this kind. Worse still, a woman can be on this diet, for it applies to both sexes. If any hon. Member is wondering why it should be worse for women, I will tell him. We should consider women prisoners as mothers and prospective mothers. It is absolutely shocking that we should put women on diets of this kind—three days' bread and water. It is bad enough for anyone, but young women who are, after all, mothers and prospective mothers should not be on these diets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) asked Questions about this in the House today. He sought information from the Home Secretary about the amount of money spent on food in prisons for the ordinary diet. The amount spent on that seemed woefully little to me. It must be remembered, therefore, that when weswitch from the ordinary diet to bread and water, the prisoners are not being switched from a particularly adequate diet but from the present diet to bread and water—and the present one is in itself only fairly adequate. In this connection, I should like to direct attention to Rule 21(2).

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the restricted diet—has she observed that this diet of three days on one and three days ordinary can go on indefinitely?


There is no time limit stipulated in Rule 55

Miss Bacon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I, too, cannot see any time limit or restriction in that rule. Rule 21(2) states:
Subject to any directions of the Secretary of State, no convicted prisoner shall be allowed, except as authorised by the medical officer, to have any food other than that ordinarily provided.
When the medical officer prescribes special diets for pregnant women in our prisons, what extra food is given to them? I am told that it is extremely inadequate for their condition, and that they do not get the fresh fruit, the milk and the eggs that they should have. They get a litle extra, but not sufficient. We sometimes talk of visiting the sins of the fathers on the children, but it is absolutely wrong in our prisons to visit the sins of the mothers on the children, who will be physically affected for life.
Rule 20 deals with clothing. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient underwear is issued for health and cleanliness? In this connection I want to refer particularly to footwear, I understand that boots and shoes are passed on from prisoner to prisoner, and that they are sometimes very dirty. The former wearer may have had diseased feet, and disease can be passed inthis way from one prisoner to another. Further, a pair of boots or shoes that have been worn by one prisoner can be very ill-fitting for the next wearer, and may cripple him.
I suggest that when a prisoner goes in for a long-term sentence and will obviously wear out a pair of boots or shoes, it would be reasonable for those boots or shoes to be new, but that a short-term prisoner should be allowed to wear his or her own footwear, if suit able—no stiletto heels or winkle pickers—or if relatives wish to provide suitable boots or shoes they should be allowed to do so. Only in exceptional circum stances should footwear be passed on. This may seem rather a small matter, but we all know that to wear ill-fitting shoes can cripple a person's feet for life something—not unimportant to the sufferer.
I know that a committee is considering the whole subject of medical services in prison. I wish that there could have been a rule under which the prisoner's

medical practitioner could, in suitable circumstances, be communicated with by the prison medical officer. I am not so sure that this is done very much at the present time, but it should be done. Again, I understand that there are many epileptics in prison. If they are left alone in the cells, that should be looked at medically.
Rule 28(1) is crucial to the whole of prison life. It is the rule headed "Work". Our present prison system is completely incapable of providing sufficient to occupy prisoners' minds. I am not a soppy sentimentalist over prisoners but, as the rules show, we are today much too strict and hard where we should not be, but we do not make prisoners do a good day's work. We should be much more certain that prisoners work hard and do a full day's work, not only to keep their families but to help compensate the victims of their crimes from anything left over. A great many of these disciplinary rules are necessary just because prisoners are sitting hour after hour with little to do except multiply their own grievances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that more work will be provided.
This afternoon, the Home Secretary replied to a Parliamentary Question on the hostel system put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch). The reply was very encouraging. The right hon. Gentleman said that, at the end of 1962, 460 men had participated in the hostel system before being discharged—that is, they had lived in the prison and had worked outside it—and that, a year later, 415 of them had not been reconvicted. The scheme seems to be working very successfully, and I hope that many more experiments will be made with it.
Rule 7 is headed "Information to prisoners". We are told that every prisoner shall be provided, in writing, with information about the Prison Rules, but I believe that these rules should also be explained to prisoners. It is very difficult to give a prisoner all these rules, and some of those who are practically illiterate find it almost impossible to realise what they are all about. Aftercare is covered by Rule 32, but that rule does not outline what happens when a prisoner leaves prison, how much money


he is given, and how he is provided for. We all know perfectly well that it is the first few days out of prison that are so important, especially to the long-term prisoner.
My main criticism of the rules is the conflict between the high-sounding Rule 1 and Rule 2(3), and the other rules, some of which I have mentioned. We are told that prison life is a preparation for life outside. Rule 2(3) says:
At all times the treatment of prisoners shall be such as to encourage their self-respect and a sense of personal responsibility…
What possible self-respect can men and women have who have been in prison for years and part of whose daily routine has been to queue up in order to empty their chamber pots? Many of the rules, and the régime in prison, make it absolutely impossible for Rules 1 and 2 to be carried out. It is not only that we object to some of the rules; we object also to the impossibility, under our present system, of putting some of the better rules into operation.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has rendered a very great public service by submitting this Motion, and has clearly stated a number of objections that many of us have.
I am bitterly disappointed that the Secretary of State has not submitted to us rules that are more in keeping with the modern conception of the treatment of criminals. My hon. Friend has mentioned Rule 1—"Purpose of prison training and treatment." Why is this rule not so specific as applied to prisoners as is the rule applying to borstal inmates?
Rule 1 of the draft Borstal Rules says that
The purpose of borstal training requires that every inmate, while conforming to the rules necessary for well-ordered community life, shall be able to develop his individuality on right lines with a proper sense of personal responsibility.
Rule 1(2) clearly states that
The objects of borstal training shall be to bring to bear every influence which may establish in the inmates the will to lead a good and useful life on release, and to fit them to do so by the fullest possible development of their character, capabilities and sense of personal responsibility.

I agree with that rule.
In 1957, a booklet entitled "Prisons and Borstals, England and Wales", was issued with a foreword by the present Foreign Secretary, who was then Home Secretary. It was emphasised on page 10 of that booklet that
…first the general deterrent effect of the penal system on potential offenders lies less in the punitive treatment of the detected offender than in the total action of the system—fear of detection, public trial and conviction, and the possibility of punishment whether by imprisonment or otherwise; second, that the deterrent effect of imprisonment on the individual offender lies primarily in the shame of being sent to prison and the fact of being in prison, with all that that fact in itself implies—complete loss of personal liberty; separation from home, family and friends…
The pamphlet goes on to say that
On these assumptions it was no longer necessary, in order to preserve the deterrent character of the prison regime, to retain deliberately punitive methods which experience had shown to have no deterrent effect upon those who were unlikely to become better, and to be so hurtful and deforming to the minds of others as to be most likely to make them worse…
I am sure that these draft Prison Rules do not conform with those clear principles.
The pamphlet added that
The aim should rather be, so far as possible in the limiting conditions, to eliminate from the regime whatever was merely negative and repressive, and to emphasise or introduce whatever might be positive and constructive; and especially to seek all means to counteract that deterioration of body and mind which is the gravest danger of prolonged imprisonment…The purpose of a prison is to protect society against crime, and this purpose is not served if the offender returns to society unfitted rather than fitted to lead a normal life and earn an honest living.
When I had the honour to be chairman of a Select Committee which examined prisons we went into this statement very closely. It should be clear to all who are responsible that our prisons should be organised with these aims and principles in mind, but what do we find today? My hon. Friend has mentioned how repressive some of these rules are. Not only are they repressive, but I think that the Home Secretary should write into Rule 1 something better, something even as good as is to be found in the borstal rules.
I have had a large number of letters in the past few years from prisoners. Some time ago I drew the attention of


the former Home Secretary to the fact that the punishment meted out to two prisoners in Winston Green Prison, Birmingham, was clearly driving those prisoners completely mad. It is not only that prison authorities often impose a restricted diet, but there is also loss of privileges and earnings and there is solitary confinement. I have seen examples of all this. I talked to two prisoners individually inside a prison and I was horrified by the fact that their bearing was quite abnormal as a result of the torture they had suffered during long periods of confinement to the cell, together with the application of other rules.
Many prisoners have objected to the food and there have been riots or mutinies as a result. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that complaints about food are adequately dealt with? Rule 21 of the draft Prison Rules lays down what the prisoner may have by way of food and drink. He cannot buy food unless he is an unconvicted prisoner. I found that in a modern prison in California visitors were able to take in certain articles of food. I found in a prison in East Germany that prisoners, out of their earnings, which were very much more than they are under our system, were able within limits to buy soft drinks and other articles.
I should like to think that the Home Secretary has evolved, or can evolve, a system under which complaints can be more satisfactorily dealt with before there is uproar in a prison.
Under the rules governing hygiene, a prisoner
…shall be required to wash at proper times…and to have his hair cut as may be necessary for neatness…
Why should a rule of this kind be applied? I do not know how the rule about hair cutting would apply to the Beatles. On the other hand, Rule 26(3) states that
A woman prisoner's hair shall not be cut without her consent except where the medical officer certifies in writing that this is necessary for the sake of health or cleanliness.
I am surprised that under Rule 27 the Secretary of State may in special circumstances authorise the reduction of the period of exercise to half an hour a day. The whole system of ensuring that prisoners have fresh air is as antiquated

as it possibly could be. I do not expect that prisoners should be allowed complete freedom to roam about the place and do what they like.
On a recent visit to a prison in Madrid I was astonished to find that prisoners there were allowed to play games and take exercise in other ways. They were not marched round a yard in two's or three's, hardly able to speak to one another. Ours is a terrible system. The way we provide for exercise is most unsatisfactory, and, moreover, I cannot understand why there should be power to reduce the period of exercise from one hour to half an hour a day. There must be something radically wrong there.
Now, visits. Rule 34(b) provides that a prisoner shall receive a visit once in four weeks if he is under 21 and otherwise once in eight weeks. Why there should be this distinction I do not know. I notice that the parallel rule for borstals is different. This is an imposition which gravely affects many relatives and parents who wish to visit prisoners. Very often the prison is many miles away from where parents or relatives live, and a visit once in eight weeks is not good enough. Let us not forget that what we are trying to do is keep the prisoner's mind free in the sense that he will feel able to lead a better and more useful life when he is released. It is no encouragement to this attitude of mind if visits are so infrequent.
Nothing is said in the rule about the duration of visits. I take it that this is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I have raised before the question of the time that visitors are allowed, and I recently drew attention to cases in which prisoners were allowed visits lasting only 10 or 20 minutes. I do not suggest that persons visiting prisoners should have as long a time as, for instance, people have when visiting patients in hospital, but I am quite certain that the time allowed is not satisfactory and that prisoners feel a very deep sense of grievance because they are cut off so much by inadequate time.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the restricted diet. I do not think that she realises that there is a period beyond which restricted diet may not be continued. It must not exceed 15 days, I think. Does the Home Secretary really believe that these repressive


punishments are a deterrent? Do they do any good at all, or, rather, is it not the fact that they do harm?
In the Report of the Prison Commissioners for 1962, we read that, in the year, there were 5,889 cases of restricted diet. That is an enormous number, with a prison population of 20,000. The number of cases of forfeiture or postponement of privileges was 6,953, and stoppage of earnings was imposed in 6,557 cases. Very often, of course, prisoners get the three together.
Why are the numbers put on diet punishment so large in some places compared with others? For instance, in Durham the number put on restricted diet that year was 545, out of a prison population of 1,000. It was many fewer in some other places. For instance, in Leeds, with a prison population of 998, almost the same, the number put on restricted diet in the year was 282. Apparently, this punishment was not used so much there, or, perhaps, the prisoners in Leeds were entirely different from the prisoners in Durham. I do not know. In Birmingham, there were 317 cases. In Pentonville, on the other hand, there were 833.
What does this punishment do? Is the Home Secretary satisfied that, if all these punitive measures are imposed, it makes for better prisoners? Or does it make them worse? So far, I have referred only to the local prisons and I have not spoken of the others.
I feel a personal sense of shame that we should say to a prisoner, "We do not know how to deal with you. You are so difficult. We have got to give you 1 lb. of bread for three days and some water, and then, at the end of three days, we shall put you back on normal diet; then you will go back on to restricted diet for another three days, and so on, for 15 days". Later, I suppose, if he commits another offence, he will get the same thing. So it goes on. I do not believe that it has any deterrent effect. I regard it as inhuman. It is time that a change was made.
I have said, perhaps, more than I had intended, but I feel strongly about these matters. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary has not brought in better rules more in keeping with

modern conceptions. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind how strongly we, and the public, too, I believe, feel about these things and bear in mind also the feelings of those who have the misfortune to have relatives in prison and who suffer much distress from time to time about what happens.
The prisoner himself is very restricted in what he may do. He has no shop steward, no one to turn to. It would be a very good thing if we could evolve some sort of system providing for a council for prisons on which the prisoner himself could express his view. We ought to have a more satisfactory system for registering what is right and what is wrong in the Prison Rules—a rules and discipline committee, so to speak, which would examine all these matters.
Who drew up these rules? Were they drawn up in the light of modern ideas and attitudes? I ask the Home Secretary to look at the matter again and review the whole subject of the rules so as to make them more in keeping with the principle that it is our duty to protect society by making sure that what we do inside our prisons will make men and women more fit to lead a better life after their release.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The first matter on which I should be grateful to have the observations of the Home Secretary is the remarkable provision under which solitary confinement can be imposed, if these draft rules become effective, for a period not exceeding 56 days.
I share the horror which has been expressed from this side of the House about this, and I find it quite startling that such a provision should be included in modern Prison Rules. The proposed rule refers to:
cellular confinement for a period not exceeding 56 days".
Does "cellular confinement" mean total denial of the opportunity of association with other prisoners? Does it really mean confinement to a cell for 24 hours a day? Or is there some provision for exercising with other prisoners? What provision is made concerning baths, meals and matters of that kind? Unless the period of solitary confinement is


qualified by substantial periods of release from the cell, this is about the cruellest form of punishment, short of actual physical torture, which one human being can impose on another.
I had occasion to pursue the practice of solitary confinement in one of our Colonies during the Summer Recess. My recollection is that, even under the Indian penal code in the most rigorous days of difficulty, it was not permissible to impose solitary confinement for a period of more than one month and then there had to be a break for the simple reason that experience showed that the psychological damage caused by solitary confinement was so grave that in some cases it produced insanity. There is abundant evidence in many reports from different parts of the world about the grave danger of solitary confinement to the human mind.
Man is a gregarious animal and it is the cruellest punishment to inflict upon him to detain him alone in a cell, as is proposed under these draft rules, for a period of up to 56 days. I hope that the Home Secretary tonight will tell us that this rule will be altered at once, because this is an intolerable form of punishment and I cannot believe that in 1964 we as a House should allow such power to rest in the hands of any prison authority. I hope that no prison authority would wish for a moment to have or to exercise such a power.
I see that many of my hon. Friends who have applied themselves over the years to this problem and who are far more qualified to speak on it than I am wish to speak, but there is one other matter which I want to touch on and it is this. I am sure that the House will agree with the first proposed rule, namely, that
The purpose of the training and treatment of convicted prisoners shall be to encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life.
That reads admirably.
I am happy to see that provision is made in Rule 6 for the temporary release of a prisoner. Paragraph (2) states:
A prisoner may be temporarily released under this Rule for any special purpose or to enable him to engage in employment, to receive instruction or training or to assist him in his transition from prison life to freedom.
I should like to know from the Home Secretary the extent to which this power

is being used and what has been the experience of using this admirable system of temporary release. My understanding is that in some cases this system has been remarkably successful and that it has been one of the most useful methods of rehabilitation. I know from experience fairly close to me how friendships built up between the prisoner released in this way and young people like those working, for instance, in the international voluntary service projects in different parts of London have been helpful not only to the prisoner but in enlarging the experience of the young people concerned.
I feel that the use of such machinery as this has been wholly insufficient in the past and I should like to know whether a significant increase in facilities of this kind is contemplated. In my view, a vital aspect of any penal system is that an opportunity should be given to the prisoner to justify himself while he is in prison as a person capable of social responsibility, of work and of making his contribution to meeting his personal and family obligations. At the moment, our prison system denies prisoners that opportunity. I can think of few things more liable to degrade a human being than to deny him the opportunity of doing a job of work and earning wages.
Some progress has been made in this respect, I know, and it has been very heartening to see it take place. But unless this matter is tackled as something to be taken very seriously and in terms of introducing into prisons the means of producing useful products which, in turn, involves the installation of suitable modern machinery capable of turning out good products—in other words, unless the problem is approached from the point of view of enabling the prisoner to do a constructive and productive job—we shall not get very far.
I should like to know from the Home Secretary the extent of the progress being made in this respect, because, as I see it, this is the most critical aspect of the problem of the treatment of the prisoner. We have, happily, moved far from the rack and thumbscrew days, save for this hideous provision about solitary confinement, and I hope that we shall hear that a fresh approach is to be made to the problem of enabling the prisoner


to justify himself in prison by being given the opportunity of doing a constructive job of work.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: Like my hon. Friends, I hope that the Home Secretary will have another look at these draft rules because they certainly do not carry out the admirable spirit expressed in the first and second rules, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) quoted. It is said in these preliminary rules that the purpose of prison treatment is to encourage a prisoner
to lead a good and useful life
and that there shall be
no more restriction than is required for safe custody and well ordered community life.
I should have thought that an essential principle of any well ordered community was that the individual owed certain duties to society in return for the performance of which society guaranteed the individual certain rights.
When a man goes to prison, he does so because he has not done his duty to society and, therefore, he is deprived of certain rights. It is all the more important, however, that the rights which he retains while he is in prison should be observed strictly and fairly and that he should be aware of them and enabled to exercise them. Otherwise, prison will not be an education for the prisoner for a good and useful life but, on the contrary, will confirm him in his belief that society is his enemy.
The prisoner has certain rights. He has the right, for example, to keep in as close contact as possible with his family and friends. The maintenance of that contact is probably the most fruitful way in which to ensure that after he leaves prison, the prisoner will be able to resume a good and useful life in the community. And yet, when I raised with the Joint Under-Secretary of State the question of the difficulty of one of my constituents visiting her husband in prison—because she lives in Nottinghamshire, where their home is, and her husband was incarcerated in Dartmoor Prison—the hon. Lady explained that the man could not be transferred to another prison near his

home because there was not room in a suitable establishment for him in a prison near his home.
Until we are able to correct this state of affairs, instead of maintaining human relationships between a man and his family we shall be using prison, as may happen in the case to which I am referring, as a means of breaking up the family life.
A prisoner is entitled to fair treatment. He is entitled to certain forms of legal protection. Although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) has not referred to them, it appears to me that the safeguards in the rules for legal protection are, at least, not clearly set out. For me, as a layman, it would be extremely difficult to find out my rights to the protection of the law.
For example, Rule 58, in the part dealing with appellants, states that
An appellant may be visited, in the sight and hearing of an officer, by any person in connection with his appeal.
Presumably, "any person" includes the appellant's legal adviser. Is a prisoner to understand from this rule that he is to consult his legal adviser within the hearing of a prison officer? That would be a denial of justice. Doubtless, the Home Secretary will say that that is covered by Rule 37, which states that the legal adviser of a prisoner in any legal proceedings may consult him
out of hearing but in the sight of an officer.
Does Rule 37 apply to cases under Rule 58?
According to Rule 60, in Part III,
An appellant may send or deliver to his legal adviser any confidential communication prepared as instructions for him and, unless he governor has reason to suppose that it contains any other matter, it shall not be read or stopped under Rule 33(3) of these Rules.
Again, however, do other rules apply here? Does this mean that in sending instructions to his legal adviser, a prisoner may not give the legal adviser any other information bearing on his case and that if he does so, or if the governor even suspects that he may have done so, the governor can stop the letter to his legal adviser? Where are the rights for legal protection of the prisoner? If they exist and are covered


in other rules, at least there should be a cross-reference so that a prisoner can fully understand his rights.
One of my complaints about the rules is that it is very difficult for a prisoner to find out what are his rights. For example, Rule 7(1) states that
Every prisoner shall be provided, in his cell or room, with information in writing about those provisions of these Rules and other matters which it is necessary that he should know, including earnings and privileges, and the proper method of making complaints and of petitioning the Secretary of State.
Necessary for whom? Who is to decide what it is necessary for the prisoner to know? Only certain things are specifically included, but what about those things which are not specifically mentioned in this part of the rules? What right has a prisoner to know what are his rights under other rules and standing orders with which it is not thought necessary to provide him?
I have a copy of one of the documents which is provided to prisoners in their cells dealing with information concerning convicted prisoners' mail. Presumably, this is the document that is referred to. It makes extracts from the rules and standing orders governing the treatment of prisoners. It does not provide a prisoner with by any means the whole text. How is a prisoner to find out all the rules, standing orders and statutes which govern his rights and duties in prison? Where can he get access to this information? Can he get it easily or is it difficult for him, as it is for Members of Parliament, to find out what these rules and standing orders are?
With the assistance of the Research Department of the Library, I have spent a good many hours in trying to find out for myself the precise rules and standing orders which govern the treatment of prisoners in prison. To begin with, the administration of prisoners, the treatment and rights of prisoners and the rights of Members of Parliament are not all defined in the Rules. To be able to know what they all are, one has also to consult the prison standing orders, some of which contain provisions very different from those contained in the rules.
I wish to refer especially to the right of a prisoner to communicate with his Member of Parliament and the right of

a Member of Parliament to receive communications from his constituents without them being interfered with. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this question has a substantial history, for he, other members of his Department, and I have been engaged for about two years in a controversy arising out of the case of a prisoner, a constituent of mine, whom I will call Prisoner X.
This man wrote to me five times and each letter was stopped by the prison governor. I was not advised that they had been stopped, nor was I even aware that he had written to me. Only by a leak from the prison did I receive a letter, when I was made aware that other letters had been written to me which I had not received.
When I took this matter up with the Home Office the then Joint Under-secretary of State assured me that these letters had been stopped strictly in accordance with standing orders governing correspondence between prisoners and their Members of Parliament. But the more I went into the matter the more doubtful I became. It took a long time to find out precisely what those standing orders were because, when I went to the Library of the House to find out, I was given a thick volume containing hundreds of pages interleaved with scores of amendments made at different dates.
The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt tell us that these standing orders do not have to be laid before the House for approval. Moreover, they are subject to constant amendment. It is, therefore, almost impossible, even for one well informed about these matters, let alone a prisoner, to know exactly what the standing orders are in current amended form which apply to his case or particular circumstances. This is an intolerable situation. It took me months to get an up-to-date, revised copy of the standing orders inserted in the Library for my own information. What is the position of prisoners in this respect? How do they obtain information about what is contained in the current edition of the prison standing orders?
Now I come specifically to letters to hon. Members. As has been pointed out, there is no reference to this matter in the Prison Rules, but Rules 33 and 34


are supposed to deal with letters and visits. Rule 34(8) says:
A prisoner shall not be entitled under this Rule to communicate with any person in connection with any legal or other business, or with any person other than a relative or friend, except with the leave of the Secretary of State.
What is the prisoner to think when he sees that? He will think, and will be left to think, that he cannot communicate with his Member of Parliament unless he gets the permission of the Home Secretary himself to do so. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will tell me, "Oh, no, because this has been provided for under Rule 33(2), which says:
Except as provided by statute or these Rules…
So we just have to find out what is provided by Statute. We find that certain standing orders have been made under the Statute. Amongst these is Standing Order 5(c), governing the conduct of correspondence between prisoners and their Members of Parliament. How does a prisoner get to know what his rights are in this respect? How does an hon. Member even become aware, except by doing some extremely hard work with other people's assistance?
I want from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that both prisoners and hon. Members will be made immediately aware that there is a right of prisoners to communicate with their Members of Parliament and of the precise conditions under which that right may be exercised. I understand that there are suggestions that Standing Order 5(c) may be further amended. It has already been amended once or twice. Is it now to be amended in a more liberal or a more restrictive direction? When the right hon. Gentleman makes the amendment, will he announce it to the House?
Surely hon. Members are entitled to know what their rights are for communications with their constituents. I also want an assurance that the standing orders governing communications between prisoners and their Members will no longer be subject to the restrictive interpretation which has been given to them under his administration and that there will be fresh instructions to prison governors to interpret them

liberally and in favour of giving the maximum opportunity to the prisoner to use his right and to his Member of Parliament to exercise his duty in relation to all his constituents, wherever they may be temporarily located.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) said that perhaps prisoners should have shop stewards to represent them. But prisoners, like other citizens, already have shop stewards. Their shop stewards are their Members of Parliament. In this society of ours, and especially in our prison societies, individuals need protection against the abuse of the power of the Executive.
All history teaches that when Executives have great power, they tend to be corrupted by that power. They cannot be trusted not to abuse their power unless they are subject to constant scrutiny and criticism. One of the main functions of Members of Parliament, more important than ever in this modern society, when the Executive is becoming more powerful, is to be able to speak up on behalf of their constituents against any abuse of power by the Executive, or against any restriction of the rights of the individual. That protection of the rights of the individual applies as much to people who are in prison as it does to those who are outside it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Coulson: I wish to make only a very short intervention on this subject and to speak first about Rule 28 which deals with work and to say straight away how much I agree with everything which the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said about this most important and vital matter in prison reform, words echoed by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) The shortage of proper work in prison makes the opening words of Rule 28(1) rather ironic. It says:
A convicted prisoner shall be required to do useful work for not more than ten hours a day…
The difficulty is not only in finding work in prisons, and that is difficult enough, but in finding suitable work, for there are limits to the usefulness of


sewing mail bags or even make roads on Dartmoor, which are both forms of occupation which are not conducive to the real purpose of prison life.
Despite that, I think that my right hon. Friend is making every possible effort to attract the right sort and volume of work into our prisons, and I for one will be very interested to hear what sort of progress he is making in that direction and what sort of response his efforts are having from the trade union movement. Work can be of value not only to the individual prisoner, from the habilitation it provides, but it is also something which might give the Prison Commissioners a chance to use for other purposes the money which that work brings in.
I do not want to stretch the argument too far, but, for example, if a proper wage were paid for light industrial work of the sort which could be done in prisons, it might enable the Prison Commissioners to draw up a scheme by which a sum could be accumulated by the prisoner for his use when he was released from prison. It is my experience that prisoners find the time after they have been released from prison the most difficult in their lives, and the shortage of money and the support that money can give at that time is often responsible for their going back to a life of crime. This is a very important aspect of after-care.
A small contribution towards his keep in prison might be made by the prisoner, if a scheme of this sort could be worked out. The cost of maintaining many prisoners in the various penal institutions is very large. I do not want to stretch this too far, but there might also be some object in making a small contribution towards possible compensation for victims of crimes of violence.
The only other rule to which I wish to refer is Rule 23, which deals with accommodation. I know that a year or two ago accommodation problems were very serious, especially in local prisons where the vast bulk of prisoners are accommodated. I think that a year or two ago 6,000 prisoners were accommodated two and three in a cell, a deplorable figure. I know that considerable progress has been made in recent years and I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend

what the latest accommodation figures are, particularly in our local prisons.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) about prisoners' letters. I think that it is a breach of Parliamentary privilege for a governor of a prison to intercept a letter from a constituent to a Member. The time has come when we should raise it. I also want to raise the whole subject of restrictions on correspondence.
In the Royal Commission on the Police, I was associated with the recommendations for the appointment of an Ombudsman. However, I have never regarded this with any passionate enthusiasm. An Ombudsman will still be a little man in a black coat and striped trousers, doing his best in limited and difficult circumstances. But the important thing about an Ombudsman is not what he is able to do, but the fact that he exists, the fact that people suffering from frustration or feeling themselves neglected or suffering from a sense of grievance, whether justified or otherwise—and a sense of grievance can bear very gravely on the mind of a person who has no genuine grievance at all, but thinks he has—the right to complain, the right to write, the right to seek sympathy and to feel that in a position of special isolation there is someone to whom one can appeal and someone to look into one's circumstances—these are the benefits of an Ombudsman, and it is these things which demonstrate the importance of the prisoner's letter.
I have never understood the curious, old-fashioned theories that if we do not censor every letter a man will be planning to escape with someone who will be driving up in a Rolls-Royce car, with a rope ladder, and clmbing the walls of the prison. One knows that in these things the grapevine exists and that it is much simpler to pass a message round a prison than it is anywhere else and that methods of communication in prison have become perfected because they have had to be. If normal forms of communications are prohibited, people will find other methods, even if they do not have the romanticism of the Count of Monte Cristo.
I have found, and other hon. Members will confirm the experience, that when I write nice, friendly letters to prisoners in Manchester, I usually get a letter from someone in Dartmoor who has heard that there is an M.P. who writes nice, friendly letters and who wants to try it on me. This shows that not only around the prison but around the whole service there is a grapevine, so there is no point in this censorship. Why should not a man write to his "missus" as often as he likes if he is prepared to pay the inflated cost of postage which the Government have imposed upon us?
Why should the governor be submitted to the humiliating duty of going through the letters word by word, wondering whether there is something cryptic in this sentence, something seditious in that, something controversial in the other, or something blasphemous in the fourth?—and there is a lot of it about now. I would suggest that it is important that a prisoner should have the right to write letters without this special and ridiculous supervision. Any form of censorship nowadays is usually done on the basis of a snap look at a limited portion of letters to see whether anything unusual is happening.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) not only because he said things worth saying, but because this is the first occasion since July of last year that the back bench Tories have been completely unanimous on any point at all.
When the Home Secretary says that it is unnecessary to alter all the plans in prison reform and prison restrictions, that is reasonable enough. But there are obviously matters which are not appropriate for the formal regulations or the formal stipulations—indeed, the fewer the regulations the better. My general complaint about these regulations is that they savour very much of the old business of the jangling key, which seems to me one of the most curious survivals of the old conception of the turnkey. Indeed, it is one of the most depressing factors militating against the development of a first-class prison service.
I believe that the prison service now is refusing warders of higher quality than ever before. I have met in prisons men of

genuine social conscience, who want to serve, and who find the business of saluting every time the governor passes, the jangling of keys, and the locking of doors all the time, very irksome.
I would be the last to quote China as as example of penal reform, but I remember two things about its system. China supports the system of having armed guards with rifles outside the prison doors, so that if anyone tries to escape he is unlikely to do so. That, no doubt, is a provision which would not be acceptable to the British social conscience—and I would support the British social conscience. China has that method, which we would not adopt, but subject to that, it says, "Of course, we should not think of locking up men at night. They cannot sleep."
The most wicked thing about the prison system—I admit there has been improvement in recent years—was that men and, worse, women, were locked up for 17 hours a day from the time that they finished the normal routine. This was so at Holloway some years ago—but still they are locked up, without any proper sanitary provision being made for them. They have to contend with the wretched business of carrying a tin chamber-pot which perhaps three people have to use. I know that there have been improvements, and I am not trying to be polemical. I know that these matters have been borne in mind.
China has the excellent idea of a suggestion box. It is not much to ask for. There is a great deal to be said for making it possible for a prisoner to put an anonymous note in the box saying that Warder Jones "stinks" and is a knocker about. No one will take much notice of just that one note, but if 15 prisoners put in notes in different handwriting, saying that Warder Jones is a "stinker", and knocks them about, the governor may think that the time has come to inquire where there is a little plot or whether Jones is not the warder he should be.
In any event, the opportunity for men of intelligence—and there are many of them in prison—to use their brains and their knowledge to try to develop a social conscience in the prison service is noticeably not used in this country to the extent that it is used in others. In countries like Luxembourg and the


Netherlands, I found that prisoners were found work of social use to them. One of the most important was in connection with the library service. The circulation of books, the development of education and vocational training, the tracing of and research for magazines and technological books that were necessary were all done by prisoners.
There are not many people who cannot recall persons who are liked and respected, but who have transgressed the law and incurred the penalty which it imposes. Why should not that service be used? Why should the restriction that either the harsh law or the harsh social conscience of the community has imposed on them deprive them of the use of their ability?
I was surprised to find in these rules—though I ought to have known it—that when the Home Secretary talks about the remission of sentence, imprisonment for debt is excluded. Is this the case? Is it that the right hon. Gentleman has no power to reduce a sentence for failure to comply with an order of a court to pay the money? In Dickens' day people thought that imprisonment for debt had been abolished. There never has been a concept of our law which is more nonsensical than this. If a man owes enough, he is not imprisoned. It is only the small man who gets sent to prison for debt. If a man owes more than £50, he files a petition, and that figure has not been raised. Before the development of money, £50 might have been thought too little.
If a man owes £50 he files a petition. If he does not intend to pay from the start he forms himself into a limited liability company, somebody else provides a little capital, he borrows a little from the bank if the manager is in a good mood, and sets himself up in business. He does not risk his own money, which, for curious reasons, is called risk capital. It is never put at risk until the company looks like becoming prosperous, when, for cash, he allots himself the unallotted shares which have been waiting for the company to prosper.
I do not like to mention clients, so I hope that I shall be forgiven for this because he has gone to his last abode and I am not sure where it is. I liked the man. He went bankrupt for £2 million about 1895, for about £1¼ million

about 1908, and £250,000 about 1922. Throughout the period he lived at a very stately hall in Derbyshire. He had a wife and a charming family, most of whom married well. I liked the man and he was not devoid of virtue. A man does not pay debts if he is well off. He does not sacrifice his property. He has it salted away under a trust. We once drew up a trust so well that, in the end, my client could not get at the money. [Laughter.]
This may sound funny, but what we are saying to the poor man is, "You will pay what you owe out of the money you earn this week, next week and the week after." To the man who earns £10,000 a year, however, we do not say, "It is reasonable that you should pay £5,000 a year." But to the man who earns £5 a week we say, "If you do not go to the county court you will be arrested, and if you do you will get the sack." We tell him that he must pay £5 a week for this, and 2s. 6d. a week for that, and if the man cannot do this he goes to prison—and the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not get any remission.
Why not abolish all this stuff and nonsense? Is it necessary for the courts to collect money from these people? If the courts did not collect this money the people who sell goods on hire purchase, and so on, would not allow people to have so much credit. In any case, the practice of giving credit is to be deprecated. I consider that our courts should not be used at public expense for collecting debts from small wage earners who have frequently been led to run into debt because of the activities of high-powered salesmen at their doors. Some day the people who sell volumes such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica should be questioned on their method of persuading working people that it is necessary for their children to have all 25 volumes on their shelves for constant reference and, of course, on constant hire purchase.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) for my absence while she was speaking. She made some reference to the Questions that I had down today. It has been said that prison regulations are now being made to ensure that prisoners have food which is useful and satisfactory for their health. I confess


that there was so much fermentation on the benches immediately behind me when my Questions were asked that I am not sure that I heard the Under-secretary of State's reply with sufficient accuracy, but I asked her what was the expenditure on food per week per male prisoner. I do not want to be discourteous to her, but whenever we raise these matters we receive in return a few stereotyped observations. In effect, Ministers say, "We buy cheaply, and we buy wisely."
Such information may be useful in a discussion on resale price maintenance, but we happen to have the buying scales of regional hospital boards and other institutions, and we know that they do not make a lot by this alleged cheap buying. It probably does not amount to a saving of more than 12½ or 15 per cent. overall.
I understood the hon. Lady to say that it costs about 14s. 6d. a week to feed a prisoner. I had expected her to say that it was 16s.—the figure that we had worked out on the limited information that we had been given, but I understand that she said that it was 14s. 6d.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): indicated assent.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that nod.
That is the cost of maintaining a prisoner in terms of food, while the cost in respect of warders, in terms of keep and uniform, works out at about £6 per head. Is there anybody in this House, or anybody on the massed Tory benches opposite—[Laughter.] No, it is not funny. Is there anybody who will say that 2s. a day is sufficient adequately to feed the men whom we are to require to work?
I agree that prisoners should do work. Penal reformers are often thought of as sentimental people who want to nurse prisoners. I agree that prisoners should be made to work. How can we rehabilitate a man by locking him up for seven years, depriving him of work and then turning him out among the community when he has lost the habit of hard and industrious work and tell

him to start again? Of course, that is the way to drive him back to the sort of life in which he has no job, and turns to crime again. We must provide work.
I will now say something that is very controversial. Too much space in our prisons is allocated to places of worship which are used for perhaps only half a day a week. I admit that in Wormwood Scrubs we have about as many religions as there are in the world. We certainly have to cater for 12 or 15 forms of it there. I have raised this matter with very distinguished men of more than one Church, and they all say that there would be no objection if a case were put up that part of these buildings should be given up and used for appropriate social services for prisoners, or that they should be permanently used for part of the week. They say that they would not want to stand in the way of such a proposition; that times have altered, and that this might be the best way of using these buildings for the service of prisoners. There must be proper places to work and there must be proper quarters.
That brings me to the question of classification and, here again, I grant the Home Secretary that there have been improvements and that the diversification of penal establishments is providing a diversified form of treatment. But to classify, classify, classify is the task, if we are to deal with the long-term prisoner. I am not referring to a prison like Brixton, which is something like a railway station, where no one knows who is going in and who is going out and where there is a procession of people coming from the courts and going back to the courts.
I am talking about people to be dealt with and where the question of substantial sentence arises. We have to decide upon the best possible course. That is a hard process and mistakes will be made. It is a cruel process upon the individual, because he will be the victim of the mistakes that will be made. But we have to decide what we shall do with him and, by examination, we have to decide whether there is any hope of reformation.
By examination, we have to decide whether there is any possibility of developing and improving some skill.
By examination, we have to decide whether we can reclaim the man. By examination, we have to decide whether we can hope to send him out of prison better trained and better disciplined than when he came in. We have not the resources and the material or organisation to do that for everyone. It is obvious. All of us have met prisoners who are enemies of society. Sometimes that may be the result of treatment which they have had. Sometimes it may be due to psychological reasons. But there are prisoners whom we must regard as irredeemable enemies of society. We have no time to give them the attention which we should like to give. They must be treated as we treat patients in hospital, where there are some cases which justify special and prolonged medical attention and others that do not.
So we have to classify. My complaint about prison is that if one tries to find what a prison governor knows about a prisoner we find that he has a card and a list of previous sentences. He knows what the man was, and nothing more. It is a great defect of the penal system. There have been great improvements recently which have been partly due to changes in the law and partly due to changes among the occupants of the bench. But when three or four days have been spent trying to find out whether a prisoner is guilty of an offence, five minutes are spent wondering what to do with him. The court relies on a friendly "copper" to say that the prisoner is a good husband and pays the rent, or else reliance is placed on the probation officer—if he has had time to make inquiries about the prisoner. Incidentally, probation officers are grossly overworked.
We ought to know whether people are healthy or not; whether they have suicidal tendencies, or whether they are in difficulties. They ought to be subjected to a psychiatric examination. We should make a study of their proclivities. There should be the fullest possible report on them. I am inclined to think that there ought to be a reconsideration of sentence when we know all about them. Provisionally, and without having applied my mind sufficiently to declare myself, I think that there is a good deal to be said for a revision of sentence in all cases.
A classic example is that it is possible to treat a homosexual. We cannot treat, or it is not easy to treat, a genuine homosexual; but we can treat an acquired homosexual. But if we cure him there could be nothing dafter than saying to him, "You are cured. But you will be 'bunged' back into a cell with two other men and locked up away from women for another couple of years until you have completed your sentence". That is fantastic.
I had a Question down today, and it turned out to be an important one. I asked how many people were detained in prison because bail was refused, or had been fixed at a figure which they could not meet, or because they were unable to produce sureties. The figure which the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary gave me was 35,000 a year. Whatever for? I do not know much about the question of deterrents, but there are two political propositions on which further information seems to be necessary. One party says that we want more arms to avert war and sometimes another party says we need fewer arms. Sometimes it is a small section of the other party. The party which advocates more arms says, "If we had had more arms there would not have been this wretched war", and, "We would have won it, anyhow".
On the question of penal reform, everyone says that if there are bigger sentences that will reduce crime, but there was more crime when there was capital punishment for almost everything. It was said that if a man was not hanged for stealing a "bob" there would be more crime. It was thought that heavier sentences would reduce crime, yet from the time the heavier sentences started crime increased, and it has increased ever since.
One of the reasons for that is that when there are two or three prisoners in a cell the older prisoners dominate the younger ones. The younger ones find who are the best receivers, and which doss houses they can go to without having to answer questions. The younger prisoner gets all the information he wants. The over-crowded prison is probably the biggest producer of crime. At the same time, we overcrowd prisons by sending 35,000 people a year to prison with all that it means—perhaps the


loss of a job and certainly the loss of social position, because one does not come out of prison without being a little worse for it; it is the sort of thing one does not often forget, friends may not forget and employers do not forget—35,000 a year for default in providing bail.
Many of them should not have been sent to prison at all. According to my information, well over 1,000—I think that it is 1,500, but I am speaking completely from memory of something I did not hear properly—were acquitted when they were brought to trial. I trespassed on the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East and found that of 800 prisoners in Leeds 100 were in prison through lack of bail. The Home Secretary may say that the 35,000 are in prison for only a week, or three weeks, and that it does not work out at much over 1,000 a day all over, but 1,000 a day is a very big figure in relation to prison overcrowding. If we could reduce that number we could reduce the total number of people in prison.
I have not been trying to be chimerical, or political, but to seek information. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider these things. When I was rapporteur on penal reform some years ago at the Council of Europe, it was constantly said to me—I grant that there have been improvements since—that there was a day when Britain led the world in this field. Where would she stand now in the league of progressive penal societies in Western Europe, or, indeed, the world?

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I am very happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), an experienced Parliamentarian who has given me a remarkable lesson in how to remain within the rules of order in a debate such as this. I should like to follow some of the provocative suggestions and remarks that he made. With some of them I agree profoundly, in particular with his suggestion that as part of our penal system we should consider setting up some system for revision of sentences. Most of us who at one time or other have to discharge the duty of passing sentence on

convicted criminals feel that, in spite of the very great improvements which have taken place in the provision of social reports and information for us, we are not adequately informed, and cannot be informed adequately at that stage, on what is the best sentence to pass in the circumstances. Those who have real experience in prison work ought after a period of time to be able to reconsider the sentences which we have passed and, in some cases, to alter them. However, that is not very directly related to the subject of these rules.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) is greatly to be congratulated upon having given us the opportunity to discuss these rules. We are once again in one sense hamstrung by our own rules of procedure. It is very unsatisfactory that in a matter of this kind we have no effective means of suggesting any improvement to these rules. All we can do is to discuss them under the form of suggesting that they should be rejected, when we do not want them to be rejected at all; and, if we have any criticisms to make constructively about the rules, all we can hope is that they will be pigeon-holed away in some file at the Home Office and that the next time the rules come to be revised somebody will bear in mind what we said on this occasion.
This is a classic example of a matter in which we might improve the procedure in this House. For regulations on matters of this kind we should have a Committee procedure; the rules should be referred to a Committee. We could then suggest Amendments and discuss them in a Committee atmosphere. These are non-party matters. They are quite uncontroversial. The procedure I suggest would enable the great deal of knowledge and experience there is in the House on these matters to be brought to bear on the constructive framing of the rules.
However, as we are in this procedural difficulty, it is inevitable that tonight our speeches must tend towards general principles rather than detailed points on the rules. The matter which stands out at once, and which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East, is the sharp and vivid contrast which there is between


the general principles set out at the beginning of the rules and what goes on in prisons in practice, as we know from our visits to prisons and as we can see from the detailed rules.
I always admire the patience with which we are received at prisons when we ask to visit them. I imagine that our visits must be a confounded nuisance to those who are trying to administer the prisons. However, we are always received most courteously and helpfully. I get the feeling that it is difficult for us on such visits to get beneath the surface. It is, therefore, of great assistance when authoritative works are written about what goes on in prison.
On the other hand, we have the plethora of books written by ex-prisoners, some of which throw a vivid light on what goes on in prison but tend to be discounted because they are, perhaps inevitably, biased. One useful service which the nuclear disarmament campaign has performed is to introduce into our prisons a rather different type from the ordinary prisoner, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be familiar with the pamphlet which some of them have produced on the conditions in prisons as they found them, with constructive recommendations for reform.
I think that the Home Secretary and his predecessors are particularly to be congratulated on the facilities which they granted to Dr. and Mrs. Morris to go and, in effect, live for a long period in one of our worst prisons, Pentonville, and make a detailed sociological study of what goes on there. It is a fascinating and interesting work, which shows not only the actual life there but the attitudes and states of mind which develop and the kind of community and community values which are built up, both amongst the prisoners and amongst the warders in the prison service. I hope that the Home Secretary has already found time to read this book. If not, I strongly urge him to do so because it gives a really authoritative and dispassionate picture of prison life.
We need to try to get the kind of revolution in the public mind in its attitude to prisons and prisoners that we have seen taking place in the last few years towards mental hospitals. It used to be a sort of taboo, when people were terrified of mental hospitals and were

ashamed that their friends or relatives had been to one. They were secretive about visiting them and people were terrified of going into one. The welfare services to assist people in mental hospitals rather lagged behind those in ordinary hospitals. We have seen wonderful changes in mental hospitals, and people no longer seem to have the same degree of embarrassment.
There must, naturally, remain a stigma attached to a prison sentence for any man who has been to prison; but cannot we find a way of making him less of an outcast from the community? He is, after all, still a fellow citizen. Can we not stimulate greater interest in the problems of criminals; the kind of life they lead in prison and, above all, what happens to them when they come out?
Great things are already being done in some spheres. There is an open prison not far from my constituency where, to their great credit, the members of a local theatrical group have produced a play together with the prisoners. It is a man's prison, but men and women from the district took part in acting the play. I am told that this had a tremendous effect and this would seem to be an example of the kind of relaxation that could be encouraged in prison.
I should like to see developing something kindred to the leagues of friends we have for hospitals—people who would take an interest in prisons and prisoners and who would be prepared to devote some of their time and resources to trying, in one way or another, to improve the lot of prisoners and to learn to understand their problems.
The crux of any real improvement in prison conditions is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East said, the question of work. One sees this at once when one considers the kind of atmosphere there is in open prisons, where men tend to be given an honest job of work to do, a job which involves something constructive, where there is an end product, something which they can see for themselves, and where they learn something of a skill, however rudimentary—a task that is not utterly routine and senseless. One can contrast that against the listless, lethargic, futile atmosphere one sees in prisons generally,


where people are doing dull, senseless and mostly destructive work.
I recall being impressed when entering one of the workshops in Lincoln Prison. At one end of the workshop was a dreary group of men, closely packed together, stitching mailbags, while at the other end, strung from the ceiling, were nets which were being made by other prisoners. To make these nets was, I gathered from the governor, a sort of privilege. The nets were being made by arrangement with the fishing industry of Grimsby. I was told that when prisoners are switched to this work an immediate change is seen in their outlook and attitude. They feel that they are doing something constructive and they see the product of their labour before their eyes. They work at a speed and with an energy and enthusiasm that is utterly lacking among the prisoners doing the futile tasks which are normally performed in prison and which make nonsense of the wording in one of the rules; that they shall "do useful work".
It is often said that one of the great difficulties is that of overcoming trade union objections, and there may be a degree of truth in that. I hope that the Home Secretary will not shrink from seeking all the assistance he can from all quarters to try to overcome objections from whatever quarter they may derive. We cannot get any positive prison policy until men are able and allowed to do a positive job within prison.
I strongly support the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) who suggested that the time has come to consider what is usually called paying the rate for the job. First, give the man a decent job, and then pay him the rate for the job. Out of the rate for the job let there be certain deductions: first, for the cost of his own maintenance in prison; secondly, for payment towards the maintenance of his dependants, comparable with the deductions from pay with which so many of us were familiar in the war; thirdly, for payment by way of compensation to the victims of his crime. He should, of course, be paid some trifling sum for expenditure within the prison. Then let anything left over from his earnings be saved for him, and given to him on his release. That is common

practice in the prison procedure in Yugoslavia. If such a country, which is poor compared with ours, can do that, surely we, in our affluent society, can also do it.
I can well see the difficulties and objections to this method. I can well imagine the state of mind of a man living in one of the areas of high unemployment, who has been striving to get work month after month and never succeeded, who must be subject to exactly the same temptation, or even greater temptation, than was the criminal who has stolen and has been sent to prison but who has the character to withstand those temptations, and who then finds the man who has committed a crime being at once given what he himself has been seeking for months—a job, and paid the rate.
That man would have a sense of bitterness, and it might be difficult to persuade him of the sense in giving proper work and payment to prisoners. But these difficulties and misunderstandings must be overcome. It is a very short sighted policy not to give prisoners proper work because, until we do, we cannot have any real hope of changing their minds, and it is only by changing their minds that we can hope to cut down the appalling figures of recidivism, and turn prisoners from a criminal life to an honest life.
I want to comment on one or two of the smaller points of prison life that occur to me as being necessary if we are to give any real meaning to this introductory rule of principle that
…the treatment of prisoners shall be such as to encourage their self-respect and a sense of personal responsibility…
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East referred to clothing and this subject figures prominently in the pamphlet and the book to which I have referred. We cannot expect a man—still less, a woman—to have any self-respect if he is dressed in clothes that are dishevelled and ill-fitting, and not changed sufficiently often. In all the descriptions one gets of prison life this subject comes to the fore—men issued with trousers that will not stay up, but have to be tied in knots to remain round their waists. Men cannot develop self-respect in such, conditions—I would ask the Home Secretary seriously to consider whether, in this age,


prisoners, if they wish, should not be allowed to wear their own clothes. Why should they be forced to wear these ill-fitting, ugly and inferior issued prison garments? This applies just as much to underclothing and footwear as to outer garments.
I utterly agree with what has been said about exercise. Can we not get away from these dreary processions round the prison yard, and allow men to take their exercise and follow their activities in a less degrading and depressing way?
On another point, I would ask why as long as we still keep the iniquitous system of capital punishment must there be open burial ground within the prison grounds. If he is to be hanged, why cannot a man receive a proper and decent burial and why should fellow prisoners have a constant reminder of this evil system by having the burial ground within the prison area?
Whilst we still have this vast overcrowding in prisons, are we right and is it necessary to adhere to the rule that if there is to be more than one man in a cell there must be three in a cell? The argument is that if two men are put in a cell it will encourage homosexuality. One knows from accounts given that there is a considerable amount of undetected homosexuality, and putting three in a cell is certainly not a complete deterrent. When it is discovered and it is known that there is a prisoner with homosexual tendencies he is not put in a cell with another man. I bring this matter forward because in a recent visit to a prison the governor raised this question with me and he said that he did not think that anything would be lost but that much would be gained by altering the system to having, where necessary, two in a cell.
The question of furnishings and fittings within a cell is important. Must a prison cell be such a barren and dreary place as it is at present if our object is to induce self-respect within the minds of prisoners? The furnishings could not be more primitive than they are today in most prisons. Another matter which may be regarded as indelicate to raise but one which assumes importance in the life of prisoners is that where there have

been three prisoners in a cell I have never seen any kind of cupboard in which they can keep chamber pots. When there are three men in a cell and they have to use chamber pots, whatever the state of their bowels, one can imagine the condition of the cell and the stench in the morning if there is no cupboard where they can be put. These conditions where men are herded together are a scandal. We should provide proper furnishings and fittings. If people ask what tasks and worth-while work can be given to prisoners we could start with modernising the furnishings and fittings, which the men could do themselves.
When these rules were promulgated there were great headlines in some newspapers to the effect that tobacco baroning would stop, because of the new rule giving governors power to confiscate articles which had been improperly and unlawfully brought into the prison. Anyone familiar with books on prison life would consider it laughable to suggest that tobacco baroning would be stopped by that simple measure. I doubt whether anything other than almost a free issue of unlimited quantities of tobacco would stop tobacco baroning.
On the question of the release of prisoners and after-care, I am delighted to see that Rule 32 states the basic and vital principle that
From the beginning of a prisoner's sentence, consideration shall be given, in consultation with the appropriate after-care organisation, to the prisoner's future and the assistance to be given him on and after his release.
The actual wording of the rule is already a little out of date because it refers to consultation with the appropriate after-care organisation and we know from the Home Secretary's recent announcement that existing organisations are to be replaced by after-care service which has been taken over by the probation service.
I invite the Home Secretary to reconsider the status and position of welfare officers within prisons. It seems to me that there might be great advantages if they could be made part of the probation and after-care service, if officers doing after-care work within that service could at times be seconded to prisons and have some experience of the welfare


service in prisons, and, equally, if prison welfare officers could do after-care work outside. There should be a complete interchange so that the two sides of the picture are really understood. As everyone knows, after-care work must start within the prison. It would help to overcome the suspicion which, I believe, many prisoners have towards the new proposals.
Prisoners tend to resent it if they are put under probation officers when they leave prison. Many of them do not like it when they are put under probation officers on licence or under supervision on release. This is because they misunderstand and confuse the functions of the after-care officer with those of the probation officer under whose supervision a man is put when he goes on probation instead of being sent to prison. They feel, "I have done my prison sentence. I have paid my punishment. Why should I have this added punishment"—for so it appears to them—"of being put under supervision?". Of course, that is not the object and purpose of it. If they could see that it is the same service which begins to concern itself with their welfare the moment they are sent to prison and that the work done there carries straight through and is continued by the same service after they have left prison, there would, I believe, be better prospects and hope for the effective functioning of the service.
As the Home Secretary acknowledged recently, the success of after-care work depends, above all, on finding employment for prisoners after their release. I take this opportunity once again to urge the right hon. Gentleman to try to persuade public authorities of all kinds to set a lead in employing prisoners after their release. This applies to Government Departments, nationalised industries and local authorities. From my discussions with probation officers and others concerned with after-care work, I understand that, with rare and notable exceptions, it is exceedingly difficult to persuade any public authority to take on an ex-prisoner, and it is also a very great handicap to probation officers trying to persuade private employers to do so when it is possible for the employer to say, "If none of the public authorities will do it, why should I?" I hope

that the right hon. Gentleman will probe this matter deeply, not, as it were, taking at its face value the kind of answer he may get at first.
I take the example of the British Transport Commission. My experience and the experience of most who are familiar with what goes on in our courts is that it is almost unheard of for a man who has been convicted of an offence of dishonesty ever to be re-employed within the Transport Commission. One can quite understand that the Commission would have good reason for saying that it could not take the risk of employing an ex-thief on the handling of parcels, for instance, but is there any reason why such a man could not be taken on as a lineman, platelayer or something of that kind just as he might be taken on to work in light industry or in a factory?
I know that the British Transport Commission says that it treats every case on its merits. A letter in these terms was written to The Times recently when the chairman of Middlesex Quarter Sessions criticised the Commission publicly for its policy. All I can say is that, in my experience and in the experience of everyone with whom I have discussed it, we have never yet come across a case in which the British Transport Commission thought there was sufficient merit to re-employ or to employ an ex-prisoner. I hope that the Commission and other public authorities will adopt a more constructive attitude and that the Home Secretary will do all in his power to urge it upon them.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) that if we are to do what Rule 1 says we should try to do, namely, to assist prisoners
to lead a good and useful life
and to prevent them from lapsing back into crime again after coming out of prison the most important factor is, as is stated in Rule 28, to provide useful work for them to do in prison.
It is absolutely incredible that people are still sewing mail bags by hand in prison and that we can call that useful work. The reason that they do this


work by hand is not because it is quicker—there are machines which can do it many times faster today—but because if machines were introduced into prisons the amount of work which prisoners would have to do would be quickly used up.
As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) said—and I am sorry that the hon. Member is not in his place, but perhaps he was beginning to feel lonely on the benches opposite—it is important for us to urge the Home Secretary to take greater action about introducing work into prisons from outside industry. I am sure that if he took the trouble to look round he would find many types of commodity suitable for production in prison. I know plastics and electrical porcelain firms in the London area which send a good deal of work out to people's homes. An effort should be made by the Home Secretary to encourage these firms to ask for tenders from the various prisons in the London area. The same may well be true in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North.
I do not believe that there is as much difficulty with the trade unions about this matter as some people pretend. Rule 28 says that
Prisoners may be paid for their work at rates approved by the Secretary of State".
It is rather a pity that these rates should be less than the current trade union negotiated rates for the type of work concerned. I believe that this is the principal difficulty. Trade unionists have said to me that they would be perfectly willing that work should be done in prisons provided that it was done at rates not less than that paid to their members outside. This is a reasonable attitude. If the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North were followed there is no reason why this should not be done, because it could be a very good investment for the State.
Many of the wives of men serving sentences in prison are on National Assistance. If prisoners were paid an adequate rate it would be possible to recover this National Assistance expenditure from their wages, just as is done in the case of maintenance orders for husbands who have left their wives. This seems to be perfectly simple to me.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Does not the hon. Member realise that a great deal of the labour of those who are serving prison sentencesis not of such quality that the standard rate can be paid? Employers of agricultural and other labour will not pay the same rate to prisoners as is paid to others in the industry because their labour is not of the same quality. That is one of the real difficulties in this matter.

Mr. Lubbock: I agree that there may be certain prisoners who are not capable of achieving the standard of workers in the industry concerned, but I named two types of work which I thought were suitable for being done in prison which are extremely simple. In both cases the work is paid for at piece rates. Therefore, naturally, the earnings of the prisoner would depend on the amount which he produced. But I agree that one would have to make up the wages of certain prisoners to the minimum trade union rate for time work because they did not achieve the standard general in the industry.
The next point that I wish to raise concerns Rule 7, "Information to prisoners," about which the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) spoke. It is not satisfactory to provide as the rule provides, that the prisoner should be given that information
which it is necessary that he should know,
because no one can explain to us who will decide what the word "necessary "means. We have not been told whether the prison governor will decide what is "necessary" or the prisoner himself. This could be overcome quite simply by specifying that prisoners could receive a copy of the rules. This could be the solution of the difficulty.
I go a little further. As the hon. Member for Ashfield said, it is not much use looking at some of the rules unless one has the standing orders available, also. I do not propose that they be issued to each prisoner and kept in his cell, because the document is bulky, but is there any reason why a copy of the standing orders should not be available in the prison library for inspection by any prisoner who needs to refer to them?
I should like to know what effect the revision of the rules will have upon the


standing orders. They are being reprinted, but it still is not easy to find my way around them. One still has to look at three different places to get a complete picture. There is a book of reprinted standing orders and there is a number of foolscap sheets which are said to be copies of extant standing orders from the old standing order book, but these do not include everything, because in the table of contents in the printed document certain standing orders are referred to which are neither in the book nor in the typewritten sheets.
I suppose, therefore, that they must still be in the old standing order book, which is full of amendments and pieces of paper pasted in from one end to the other. I still find it difficult to get the complete picture. I should like to know from the Home Secretary how long it will be before the standing order book is completely revised and reprinted, so that we may know where we stand.
Communications to Members of Parliament are referred to in the reprinted document, but I cannot find, either in the reprinted document or in the foolscap sheets, anything which refers to communications to people other than Members of Parliament.
On classification, Rule 3 of the new rules states that prisoners may be classified
in accordance with any directions of the Secretary of State".
The journal New Society seems to consider this a great step forward, because today's issue condemns the system of "stars" and "ordinaries" and the distinction of having certain prisons for "stars" only. It states:
This system ignored not only the fact that many stars are ex-Borstal or ex-approved school and, therefore, not so different from many ordinaries, but also the manifest truth that a considerable number of ordinaries would benefit from star facilities.
I entirely agree with that.
The standing orders specify the classification to be followed. In Section 10, the table of. contents still refers to the "star" class and the "ordinary" class, although when looking at Section 10 of the standing orders one finds that the subsection in question is not included. I should like to know, therefore, where we stand on the question of classification.

Are we to have a completely new look at this?
Communications are dealt with in Rule 33. Subsection (3) states that
the governor may, at his discretion, stop any letter or communication on the ground that its contents are objectionable or that it is of inordinate length.
As to communications to Members of Parliament, which are included in the reprinted standing orders, the grounds for objection are denned in much greater detail. But other letters are not dealt with in the new book. I imagine that they were included in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Standing Order No. 5, which have not yet been reprinted.
Would it not be possible to refer in the rule to the standing order so that a prisoner who has a copy of the rule book can look at it if he is in doubt as to what he may or may not say in a letter he is about to write, particularly if we couple this with the suggestion I have made that a copy of the standing orders should be available for inspection by prisoners in the library?
Rule 49(2) concerns inquiries into charges against prisoners for offences against prison discipline. The prisoner must appear before the visiting committee. The new rule, I believe, follows exactly the wording of the old one—that he should be charged with presenting his own case. I believe that most prisoners feel—as do a lot of outsiders concerned with prisons—that they should be entitled to have a prisoner's friend helping with the presentation of a case. The prisoner in such circumstances stands completely alone under the present system and has difficulty in getting witnesses to come forward, for his fellow prisoners will nearly always fear the consequences of supporting him against the establishment, which is the way they look at it.
It would be helpful to a prisoner facing a charge if someone could be delegated to act for him. This is especially so when he stands to get a severe punishment. I can see all sorts of objections to having a member of the prison staff acting for him, but one suggestion made to me is that the prison chaplain could perhaps be the prisoner's friend. Alternatively, it could conceivably be done by a visiting magistrate. I


hope that the Home Secretary will consider this point.
I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestion that it would have been helpful if these rules could have been dealt with by a committee, because some very constructive suggestions have been made in the debate and it is a great shame that we have had no opportunity to alter the rules.

9.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): It is excellent that the House should, from time to time, discuss prisons—not only Prison Rules, but what goes on in prisons more widely. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who said that he thought there should be wider interest in prisons and what goes on in them among the general public.
My view is that that interest is developing. More journalists, more Members of Parliament and others are seeking permission to visit prisons and I do not think the prisons are cut off from the mass of the people as they were not so very many years ago. Certainly I welcome that.
Itis a good thing when prison films are shown on television. I took part in one myself not long ago. We have nothing to be ashamed of, although, of course, we have a tremendous amount that we want to improve. We shall improve old buildings more successfully if there is a more widespread public opinion about modern treatment of prisoners.
The tone of the debate has been biased in some respects partly because we have simply been looking at the rules, and one can no more judge equitably what goes on in prison by looking at the rules than one can form a comprehensive judgment of the House of Commons by looking at its Standing Orders.
Since I have been Home Secretary, I have endeavoured to get around as much as possible and to see for myself. All of us who are Members of Parliament know that a visit to a prison does not show us all that we would like to know. A prison sentence will teach one more than a one-day visit. Nevertheless,

I never visit a prison without learning something, and I should like the House to know that in 1963 I personally visited 14 prisons, three borstals and four detention centres. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and my other two Ministerial colleagues between them paid 36 visits and we are aiming at securing that all the 90 or so establishments under the Prison Department of the Home Office will have received a Ministerial visit before long.
I have taken considerable interest in these new rules and I myself would not claim for a moment that they are perfect. One has to take a certain moment of time and produce a new set of rules and one has to put in the standing orders those things which are most likely to change and be adapted, because it is easier and quicker to alter the standing orders than it is to alter the rules.
If one compares these rules with those of days long gone by, one sees the enormous improvement and how fantastic it is to describe some of these rules as mediæval. The rules in 1899 were far more numerous. At that time, there were 312 rules governing local prisons alone and 190 governing convict prisons. We have steadily got these simplified and I think that the House would agree that all the time we are getting them into simpler and more comprehensible language, and we now have them down to about 100.
For example, there is Rule 3, the classification rule, to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred. The detailed old classification rules are out of date now because we need greater flexibility. The old 1949 rules, which we are now supplanting, envisaged there being large numbers of young prisoners serving prison sentences. There were in 1949, but the numbers are now very different.
My aim is to get all young people under 21 out of prison, apart from a few cases of very serious offences. Although at present we cannot because we have not yet got all the accommodation, in general we want to make that our aim. Already, since 1st August, last year, no young people under 17 can be sent to prison. We are making steady progress in these directions.
Overcrowding and work in prison have been mentioned and I should like to deal with these two major issues before endeavouring to answer as many detailed points as I can. It is a shocking thing that there should be three in a cell, but I do not regard that as the greatest evil in the present prison system. The greatest evil is that so many of these men, whom we want to be training to stand on their own feet and earn their own living outside, are not able in prison to do more than about an 18 or 20-hour working week. I intend to make that my first objective and I have already put certain changes in hand. I am already setting myself to make the necessary plans to increase the normal working hours in those prisons where they are now shortest, and I think that we should take one target after another and steadily increase them as near as we can to a normal working week.
Overcrowding at the peak time was about a year ago when there were 8,624 prisoners sleeping three in a cell. We have now got that down by nearly25 per cent. The latest figure I had was 6,555. That is partly due to the fact that there are not so many in prison at the moment, for one reason or another, but it is also partly due to the very substantial prison building which we have in hand, and which is now coming to fruition.
Last July, I opened—one cannot open a prison, but whatever one does to a prison; I do not think that one can close a new prison, either—I inaugurated the first new purpose built secure prison for men that had been inaugurated for 50 years, since Camp Hill Prison, in the Isle of Wight, was inaugurated by my predecessor the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). That teaches two things.
First, what a tremendous backlog of old buildings we have to deal with. For one reason or another, partly because the prison numbers were not rising in the 1920s and 1930s—they were stable—there seemed no need for new prison buildings. But it also shows that we are now getting the first results from the big building programme that my predecessor put in hand. We have five more secure prisons in that programme, which

are coming forward, and our plans are such that within four or five years, if the prison population remains reasonably stable, we shall have eliminated three in a cell.
Work for prisoners is a somewhat more complex problem than some hon. Members have indicated. There are three things that we need if we are to give prisoners a full week's work. We need workshop space. Many of our older prisons are surrounded by an enormous prison wall and there is very limited space inside. We need work, and the nearer it is to the kind of work that prisoners may be doing when they come out of prison, the better. It is not all destructive, with respect to the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North. There is a great deal of constructive work, too. We have to bear in mind that we have large numbers of prisoners in for quite short sentences, who would not, in the time, be able to learn complex work. We have also, I am sorry to say, a large number of prisoners of not very high intelligence, and I think that the sort of destructive work which the hon. Member has seen is probably, at any rate for the first few weeks, the most suitable work that a man like that can be asked to undertake.
I entirely agree that one should not be anything like satisfied with the orders that we are at present able to get for the prisons. I am giving attention to that. We already tender for contracts from outside firms, and we get a number of them. I know that these are delicate matters and that it might be alleged that we were taking work away from local, free people who have not committed any crime and who might thereby be unemployed. Fortunately, the employment position, at any rate in the greater part of England, is now so good that there is little risk of that, but it has to be watched.
With the help of my Advisory Council on the Employment of Prisoners, on which the trade unions are represented, I believe that we shall be able to make considerable progress. That Advisory Council has just completed a further report on this subject of work for prisoners, and I hope that within the next few weeks we shall be able to get that published.
As regards payment, there is nothing in these draft rules to prevent me from


putting into effect the practice of paying wages to prisoners comparable to those paid in outside industry, but it is a highly complex question and I think that it deserves a good deal of further study, because indissolubly connected with the question of prisoners' earnings is the other question of what compulsory deductions should be made from the earnings if they are increased above the present level of pocket money.
I would make these two points: first, we must make every effort, as we are doing—I am giving my personal attention to this—to improve the organisation of prison industries so as to create a situation in which it will be reasonable to begin to consider the payment of normal wages. It is not reasonable to consider that if, because of the restrictions I have mentioned, prisoners in Wandsworth do not get the chance of working more than 18 hours each week.
My second point is that advance in this field must come in stages, and may come at a different pace in different parts of the prison system. We already have a full working week for everybody in borstal, for the younger people throughout the prison system. We have carefully to extend it.
As I said, there are three obstacles, and I have still to mention the third which, fortunately, we are overcoming, and that is the shortage of prison officers. This was very severe a few years ago. I am glad to say that recruitment is running at a very high level. I am disposed to agree with what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said, that we are now obtaining a very high quality of recruit to the prison service. I should not like to say that it is the best we have ever had, because comparisons are odious, but I am satisfied both with the number and with the quality. No, I shall never be satisfied with the number, but we are coming into a position where not only can we staff the new prisons which are being inaugurated but we can improve the situation in those prisons where hitherto we have been able to work only a single shift of prison officers, and if one is working with only a single shift of officers, clearly one is not able to have the prisoners unlocked for enough time of the day to allow them a long working day in addition to their meals, their exercise, and everything else which they have to do.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: What about temporary releases from prison to enable work to be done outside the prison?

Mr. Brooke: I have made extensive notes of the speeches made by hon. Members. I shall take up as many points as I can, only sitting down when I have obviously wearied the House.
I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) was wrong when she said that in the Prison Rules we have the whole of our prison system. We have not. We have just the bare bones of it, and if she says that these are mediaeval, most of the mediaeval features she sought to point out were taken direct from the rules dated 1949. I do not know whether the hon. Lady—who was a Member of the House at that time and I was not—challenged them then.
The hon. Lady said that the state of our prisons prevented Rules 1 and 2 being carried out. I would not go as far as that, but I would readily agree with her that the existence of so many old prisons is a severe handicap to applying the modern methods which we would wish to apply, and which we are applying wherever we can.
She referred to the conditions governing the sending of letters to Members of Parliament. What prisoners are allowed to do is set out in the information booklet which is available to every prisoner. It is also available to hon. Members, in the Library. I want to re-examine these rules, because I think that at the moment they are not clear enough. I hope that we would all agree that letters from prisoners to Members of Parliament should be stopped if, for instance, they contain libels on the judges, or set down on paper complaints against prison authorities which have not been ventilated in the approved way within the prisons.
It is essential for prison discipline that if a man has a grievance he should first seek to have it remedied through the proper channels. If he has had his grievance ventilated, but has not had it remedied, there is no reason why he should not write to his Member of Parliament or petition the Home Secretary—a course which is also open to him. But it would not be right or wise for prisoners who had not attempted to get


their grievances remedied through the proper channels laid down within the prisons to be free to write to Members of Parliament, asking them to intervene.

Mr. Warbey: Is it now clear to prisoners, to hon. Members, and to the right hon. Gentleman himself, that prisoners must exhaust all the various channels through which complaints can be made before they write to their Members of Parliament, or need they try only one method and, having failed in that, write to their Members of Parliament?

Mr. Brooke: Normally, a prisoner who has a complaint can voice it to his prison officer, and then to the Governor. He can then ask to see the visiting committee or the board of visitors. He should do these things in the first instance. I hope the House agrees with that. He can certainly write to a Member of Parliament about something before he petitions the Home Secretary. All that is desirable is that in the normal way he should go through the regular routine arrangements which are laid down for lodging complaints. I think that the rules relating to correspondence with Members of Parliament could be simplified and clarified, and I am giving my attention to the matter.
I now turn to the question of the tobacco barons. I would not claim that this new rule, by itself, would bring the activities of the barons to an end. I am sure that that is not the case. But the House should recognise that this is only part of the combined efforts that we have been making to curb the barons. We have increased the lowest rates of earnings and, as a result, have been able to increase the amount of tobacco or the equivalent in cigarettes which a prisoner may retain in his possession. It used to be half an ounce; it is now two ounces. That means that a prisoner is less likely quickly to run short and be tempted to fall into the hands of the barons, who charge very high rates of interest, seldom less than 100 per cent.
Secondly, we now issue an advance of earnings to a prisoner on his first reception into prison, so that he is less likely to get into the hands of the barons because he cannot resist the temptation to smoke in his first few days in prison.
This new rule about the confiscation of money sent in anonymously has been widely discussed and considered within the prison service. It is believed by those closest to this traffic, and the attempt to stifle it, that the new rule, together with the other measures which I have mentioned, will severely limit the power of the barons; though I certainly hesitate to say that it will stop them altogether. The baronage flourishes most in the large crowded local prisons where there is a mixture of sentences, and the more speedily those serving longer sentences are got out of the local prisons to regional or central prisons the less will be the chance of baronage establishing itself.
The hon. Lady criticised severely the new rule which says that in certain circumstances, and for very serious offences, a visiting committee or board of visitors may order up to 56 days cellular confinement. I listened to her words, and when she reads them again tomorrow, I wonder whether she will feel that she was taking sufficiently into account the need for safeguarding the prison officers who are exposed to great risks of personal assault. It is important that there should be severe penalties available to visiting committees and boards of visitors to be imposed in certain cases. The hon. Lady will notice that an award of 56 days cellular confinement can be given only for such offences as escaping, or attempting to escape, assaulting an officer or doing gross personal violence to some other people.
Unquestionably, there must be deterrent sentences, and the problem arises in this way. The most severe, the most disliked, award that a prisoner who has been misconducting himself can get is the loss of remission of his sentence. The House knows that if a man is now sentenced to three years' imprisonment that is, in fact, regarded as two years. But he is liable to lose the 12 months' automatic remission with which he starts, if he has a loss of remission awarded to him.
Suppose a man has lost the whole of his remission so that no further penalty may be imposed on him in the form which he dislikes most, by loss of remission. Clearly, the visiting com-


mittee or board of visitors must have other severe penalties available to it. There are few boards of visitors, even in cases of assault, which would wish to go straight to the imposition of corporal punishment. There are other punishments. There is the stoppage of earnings, the exclusion from associated work and cellular confinement. These three are generally found to be the most effective.
Generally speaking, a visiting committee or board of visitors would not wish to make an award of corporal punishment except in the most serious forms of very grave offences. When they are faced with an offence of this kind, an offence in respect of which they would not wish to go so far as awarding corporal punishment, and if the offender has already forfeited all his remission so that he cannot adequately be punished in that way, the committee or board is faced with a difficult problem. I believe that the powers given to boards or committees, though they will not often be used, will be of value in the form of an increase in alternative penalties. The hon. Lady spoke about restricted diet. She had overlooked the fact that elsewhere it states that restricted diet can not be imposed for more than 15 days.

Miss Bacon: Will the right hon. Gentleman make this clear? I admit that it is 15 days, but there is nothing to prevent a further 15 days being given for another offence almost immediately at the end of the first 15 days.

Mr. Brooke: It could only be imposed for a further serious offence because this is only for serious offences, but the possible remedy of petition to the Home Secretary is always available. The hon. Lady and some other hon. Members sometimes speak as though I or the governors imposed these penalties. These are the sort of penalties which can be imposed only by visiting committees of local magistrates or boards of visitors, people wholly independent of the prison service. That is one of the valuable safeguards. It should be one of the prides of our country that ordinary citizens are willing to take on the wholly unpaid duty of acting as members of visiting committees or bodies of visitors.
The hon. Lady argued that the prison diet was of itself inadequate. I do not

think it is inadequate; I think it is monotonous. The prison diet provides a man with more than 4,000 calories a day. My medical advisers say there is no sign of malnutrition or debilitation in hospitals following from eating prison food. I expect that most of us—not as prisoners but as visitors—have eaten prison food. I certainly take the opportunity of doing so. I should not like to have to eat it every day of the week for months, but certainly all the food I have eaten or seen in prison has appeared to be of good quality and making a reasonable meal.

Mr. Hale: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the term "calory" is now very much out of date in this connection? The question is whether it is a balanced diet. One of the troubles is that we are always told that some prisoners put on weight. One always puts on weight on a limited diet which is bung full of carbohydrates. It is the lack of variety and the restricted conditions, which do not show up quickly and are difficult to detect, that make the figure an astonishingly low one which needs much examination.

Mr. Brooke: We are discussing the rules. They say that the food must be wholesome, well prepared and reasonably varied. I have no hesitation in maintaining that the food in our prisons generally does meet those requirements, but I entirely agree that day in and day out prison food is monotonous.
I was asked what extra food was available for pregnant women. That is entirely a matter for the prison medical officer. He can prescribe what special diet he thinks is needed in any particular case.

Mr. W. Yates: Does he do so?

Mr. Brooke: Of course, and there is every possibility for a prisoner to complain if that is not done. I should like to pay tribute, which I think will be echoed by other hon. Members, to the governors of our women's prisons. I think that we are very fortunate in the quality of women governors. While I am always looking for improvement, I think that we should be hesitant to criticise as though our women's prisons were in callous hands.
The hon. Lady asked about underwear. The provision of underwear is adequate. If she has any specific questions about clothing which she would like to discuss with me, I should be very glad indeed to do so. She asked about footwear. The position about footwear was explained in an Answer to a Question today. If she will examine that reply, I think she will see that we do not serve out all prisoners with somebody else's shoes, possibly from diseased feet. Our policy is, wherever a prisoner has got a long enough sentence to justify it, to provide him with a new pair of shoes at the beginning of the sentence. I do not think, however, that I could accept the plea that prisoners be allowed to wear their own shoes or their own clothing.
The hon. Lady asked about the medical inquiry. This inquiry into the prison medical service has gone forward. It has just about been completed. I shall pay very great attention to its recommendations.
The hon. Lady asked whether epileptics were left alone in cells. This is not done, and special care is taken of those who are epileptic.
The hon. Lady asked if the rules could be explained to prisoners who might not understand them. That is provided in Rule 7(2).
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) asked why Rule 27(2) empowered the Secretary of State to restrict exercise to half an hour a day. There are certain cases—elderly prisoners, prisoners who are not really fit to walk in the prison yard for an hour—who do not want to be out for an hour a day. They ought not to be compelled by the rigidity of a rule to be kept out for as long as that, if all concerned think that half an hour for cases like that is enough. We have some very old men in prison, as well as some very active ones. This is a mimimum. It is a requirement of the rules. It is desirable that there should be some flexibility there. I think that the hon. Member was under the impression that prisoners now were not allowed to talk to one another during exercise. That is no longer the case.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that visits once in eight weeks were not enough. This again is a minimum which in fact is widely improved upon, but the rule must lay down a minimum which at all costs must be kept. The hon. Gentleman asked why restrictive diets were more common in some prisons than in others. This is partly because there are different types of prisoners in different prisons and partly because some visiting committees or boards of visitors may take a rather different attitude about what suitable punishments are for certain types of prisoners than is taken elsewhere.
The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) asked about the value of temporary release. He knows that we have very substantially developed the hostel system and we are seeking to do what we can to ease and smooth the transition from confinement in prison to freedom outside. The first few days after release are one of the most vulnerable times. I believe that the hostel system has done great good by enabling these long-term prisoners to accustom themselves to being outside prison when otherwise they might have become institutionalised.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) asked whether Rule 58 overrode Rule 37. The answer is that it does not. I can assure him that a prisoner who wishes to consult his legal adviser can have the benefit of rule 37.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Would the Home Secretary answer the somewhat precise questions I put to him about cellular confinement? Does it mean that a man is in a cell for 24 hours of the day? What is the extent of deprivation and total lack of association involved?

Mr. Brooke: It does not involve a prisoner being in his cell for 24 hours a day. The man will go out for exercise, for a bath, to the lavatory, and so on, but he will not be in association with others.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: He will be quite solitary?

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps we can consider the case of Madsen about whom Questions were asked the other day. He was allowed to exercise. He was able to watch television in the evenings. That


case was a very peculiar one, because he was not there as one of the other prisoners might have been, for assault on a prison officer, but because he is one of the two or three outstanding escapers in the whole prison population. The difficulty about having him out in association with other men is that he is immediately planning a mass escape.

Miss Bacon: Was he not out of association under an altogether different rule from the one we are discussing? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I asked him to explain the difference between the two rules because the matter which has been raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South and other hon. Members is something quite different.

Mr. Brooke: He was deprived of association. The hon. Lady is quite right. That is something rather different from the cellular confinement imposed as a penalty.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in all seriousness, whether the Home Office has taken the advice of psychologists or prison officers about the mental consequences upon a prisoner of being kept in solitary confinement, effectively out of human association, for as long as 56 days'? I have read learned medical works on this suggestion that the mental and medical consequences upon the state of mind of a prisoner are absolutely disastrous in certain cases and can actually produce insanity.

Mr. Brooke: I am certain that that would not be allowed to happen. All these punishments have to be watched, not only by the governor but by the prison medical officer; and he would certainly call attention to it if he thought that a severe penalty was affecting a prisoner's mind.
I was talking about the deprivation of association. In the majority of cases where a man is not in association with his fellow prisoners it is by his own choice. We have a substantial number of prisoners who, for one reason or another, think that they may be in danger if they are in association with others. They therefore ask to be segregated. Where a prisoner is

thought to be a danger to good order and discipline he may be segregated regardless of his wishes—and that was so in the case of Madsen.
That provision is simply a necessary one which is used, in particular, to prevent known escapers or known men of violence from organising plots to escape, mutinies or attacks on the staff. I quite agree that the less we have to use these severe penalties the better, but it is important to have some of them in reserve.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) for his remarks. I entirely agree with his general outlook on the importance of work. I took his point that the money earned by work would be useful on discharge, and that is exactly one of the gains we acquire from the hostel system. A man working under a hostel system is allowed a small amount of pocket money, but the rest, after paying for his keep, is set aside, and provides him with a nest-egg when he comes out.
The hon. Member for Oldham West—

Mr. Warbey: I understood that at the point at which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South intervened, the right hon. Gentleman intended to answer some of my points more specifically. Without wearying the House too much, can the Home Secretary come back to them?

Mr. Brooke: I will do my best, but I am afraid of wearying the House. I am trying to pick up—and I hope the House will think that I am not doing badly—a good many of the points made in the debate.
The hon. Member for Ashfield spoke about the standing orders, to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) also referred. I am very anxious to get the standing orders into more manageable form, and I quite agree that what has been available in the Library until fairly recently has not been very easy to follow or find one's way about. My purpose is to get the standing orders into a set of manuals of reasonable thickness. That work is going forward, and I hope that in due course it will be completed. The cyclo-


styled sheets are a temporary means until we have got the standing orders into book form. I think that was the hon. Member's main point.

Mr. Warbey: There is also the question of the transfer of prisoners to prisons within reasonable distance of their homes so that wives can visit them. I also asked the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that when he amended the standing order governing prisoners' letters to Members of Parliament, he would make a statement about it to the House.

Mr. Brooke: I will be very glad to answer a Question on that because my interest, like that of other hon. Members, is that everyone shall know what the rules are. As the House realises, it is only a short time since the rule was changed to enable prisoners to write to hon. Members at all.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West has had to leave the Chamber, but I would not agree with his suggestion of encouraging anonymous complaints to a prison governor. I am much more sympathetic with his remark that there were men of intelligence in prison who were not used sufficiently in the prison environment to further progress of social development, and so on, in prison. We have, of course, the H and K wings in Wandsworth, which I should like extended elsewhere. We are feeling our way forward.
The hon. Member spoke of prison food. It is important to explain that 14s. 6d. a week is based on bulk buying on long-term contracts because, otherwise, people would go about the country asking, "How would you like to feed your husband on 14s. 6d. a week?" Of course, 14s. 6d. a week, at the prices at which the Prison Department buys, is equivalent to more than twice that amount at retail costs. I do not regard prison food as other than monotonous. I do not believe that prison food should be in any way luxurious. It should be simple, but adequate and wholesome, and comply with the other adjectives which the rule contains.
I also thought that the hon. Member for Oldham, West was unkind in suggesting that the ordinary prison governor

knows nothing except statistics about the prisoners in his care. I have certainly not found that in going round prisons with governors. I have been deeply impressed by the amount of personal knowledge the governor has about individual prisoners and especially about those who have been in prison for some time. As we develop the system of remand centres we shall steadily be able to improve the service which can be given to the courts by reports on the nature and character and potentialities of the prisoner and the kind of treatment which might serve his best interests.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North would like a system of review of sentences. He will appreciate that that is somewhat outside the scope of the present rules. He asked whether I had read the Morriss book about Pentonville and of course I have. What it impressed upon me was that it was far removed from the Pentonville of today, no doubt due in part to the fact that it was based on studies made there four years ago. If the hon. and learned Member follows that up he will find that there has been a vast improvement in the ratio of staff to prisoners at Pentonville in those four years and that is one of the most important gains if one wishes to improve the atmosphere of the prison system. The hon. and learned Member also asked about the furnishings in the cells. I do not know whether he has had the opportunity of visiting our newest prison at Blundeston.

Mr. MacDermot: I have not visited the prison but I have visited the open prison and seen some of the furniture being made there for it. That was what put the point in my mind.

Mr. Brooke: The cell furnishings at Blundeston are a great advance on what we have in our older prisons. They are almost entirely prison-made. I am sure that one of the most useful jobs of work done in prison workshops is to have simple modern furniture made which will be an improvement on the older furnishings in the cells.
If I do not reply about the status of welfare officers in prisons or the work done for discharged prisoners by local authorities I hope that the hon. and learned Member will not think that a discourtesy on my part. I hope that


we shall have debates on after-care and the like, which I regard as tremendously important, but they are outside the rules, on which I am afraid I have spoken for too long.
I end by referring to a remark made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who asked somewhat cynically where England would now stand in the league table of prison progress. She would stand pretty high—not at the top, because we are handicapped by our old prisons and by our shortage of staff. But my purpose as Home Secretary is to put her right at the top as soon as possible.

Mr. Lubbock: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the point I raised on Rule 49(2) about the right of a prisoner to have a friend to help him with the presentation of his case when charged with an offence against prison discipline before the visiting magistrates?

Mr. Brooke: One cannot go more than a certain distance in these cases. A man who has got himself into prison cannot hope to have all the advantages that a free man would have outside if he was having his case presented by a lawyer or a trade union official or someone like that. My experience is that in such cases the visiting committee or the board of visitors is very anxious to get to the bottom of what is troubling or biting the man who has complained to it, but I do not think that a right way of doing that would be to insert in the rules a provision that a prisoner who came up before the visiting committee or the board of visitors could have as of right a friend by his side.

10.30 p.m.

Miss Bacon: Some of my hon. Friends, in the course of their speeches, congratulated me on having initiated this debate. I should not only like to congratulate them on the excellence of the debate but I have been filled with admiration at the way in which they have enlarged the scope of the debate while keeping well in order.
I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for the very detailed reply that he has given. Even though he has not satisfied all of us on every point, at any rate he has attempted to give a detailed reply. He said that

he thought it was an excellent idea to discuss prisons. So do we, but I would point out that in the last two or three years whenever we have discussed prisons the debate has been initiated from this side of the House, and, as far as I can remember, no time whatsoever has been given by the Government for the discussion of the important problem.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one cannot judge prisons simply by the rules. I agree, from some of the prisons that I have visited, and particularly some of the open prisons, that the actuality is much better than one is sometimes led to believe from the rules. Nevertheless, I should also like to reiterate what some have said, that in many of the prisons conditions are worse than the rules would have us believe. I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that the problem of overcrowding is not so much one of prisoners sleeping three in a cell as the fact that during the daytime the prison is overcrowded and there is too little work for the prisoners to do.
If I had thought that I would have been in order I would probably have made a different speech from that which I did make. However, I should like to make one fundamental point. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that overcrowding in prisons has decreased because there are more prison places. It is important thatthe old prisons should be replaced by newer and more modern ones; but I do not think we should view this problem solely from the point of view of providing more prison places. We should consider the present prison population and ask whether prison is the best place for some of these people. Let us consider some of the inadequate people. Would they not be better in hostels, where they could be taught to go out to work and fend for themselves?
I have not been into so many prisons as the right hon. Gentleman has, but I have visited a few. I have seen desperate criminals, murderers, and so on. One prisoner who stands out in my mind is a man who arrived at Leeds prison, having been sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. I was watching the reception at that prison at five o'clock one evening. The governor said, "Hullo, Jimmy, are you back again?"
This man had come from Hull. He had had to have an escort all the way from Hull to Leeds, a distance of 60 miles. He had arrived to serve his 28 days sentence and was greeting his old friends. At the end of the 28 days he had to be given a railway ticket back to Hull where he had been picked up.
This man stays out of prison for two or three days, gets drunk with his pals among the seamen and then gets another sentence of 28 days. That is how he lives, and we, the people of Britain, are having to pay for this. This kind of person ought to be in some kind of home for alcoholics and given training and medical treatment. That is why I say it is not just a question of seeing how many more places we can get but of looking at the present prison population and seeing what can be done about the situation. We should also

bear in mind the inadequate types of people who are in prison.
In conclusion, I reiterate what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) said about our procedure. We have to accept all these rules or reject them all. It is quite plain that we should have liked to have discussed in detail, and perhaps voted on, the provision to increase solitary confinement from 28 days to 56 days and the punishment diets, but, as we are not allowed to do that, and as we cannot be without any Prison Rules at all, we shall have to accept them as they stand.
I hope that the Home Secretary has noted everything that has been said in the debate and that, before long, we shall have some amendments to the rules on the lines we have indicated.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, RENFREWSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this. House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

10.36 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I wish to raise the question of exclusion of Renfrewshire from the White Paper on Central Scotland. Of course, if the time for the debate had been longer, I might have had some support from Members representing the Highlands and Islands, Peterhead, Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Ayr and Dumfries, because all these areas are excluded from the White Paper, as is Paisley, Greenock, Port Glasgow and Gourock.
We are concerned about our exclusion from the White Paper because of the emergence of the new concept of growth areas. We do not understand—and there are very few people who seem to understand—what is the Government's criterion for the selection of growth areas. Is a growth area chosen on the basis of need? In answer to the debate on 3rd December, 1963, the Secretary of State said:
What does 'priority' mean unless it means giving more to the places which need it most?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1096.]
If that is the view, I need not argue the point about Greenock, Port Glasgow and Gourock. We have had the invidious distinction of having a high rate of unemployment for many years, and at present our unemployment rate has gone up once more and is nearly 7 per cent. In addition, we have a high migration rate, with a net migration of about 900 a year, which compares closely with the worst of the migration rates in the whole of Scotland.
If it is not based on need, is it a question of capacity to expand? Because of the Rootes factory at Linwood, we have one of the biggest areas of potential expansion, and, moreover, in the neighbouring town of Port Glasgow, we have a whole new part of an estate laid out for expansion. Admittedly, it took some time to persuade the Government to agree to this, it has taken them a long time to buy the land, and

they are moving slowly in their preparation of the land; but it is true, nevertheless, that we have the facilities there.
I could not understand the Secretary of State for Scotland when I questioned him about this matter in the House on 27th November last. He had told a representative of the Press, as he admitted later, that within the towns of Port Glasgow and Greenock there was much less available space. In fact, on checking the Press report, one finds that he said that there was no space. However, even accepting the correction which the right hon. Gentleman gave in reply to my Questions on27th November, the fact remains that there is a very large acreage of ground, half as much again as the size of the present industrial estate in Port Glasgow, available for expansion. So I cannot understand the point about the criterion being the capacity to expand.
The area which I represent and the areas represented by the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) are excellent areas for expansion.
If the criterion is not need and it is not capacity to expand, what is it? We would like to know, and I am sure that our interest is shared by people in almost every other area of Scotland which has been excluded from the White Paper on Central Scotland.
There appears to be an advantage in being a growth area instead of a development district. This naturally worries the development districts, who are excluded from being growth areas. First, we read from the comments of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the debate on 3rd December that growth areas are considered in preference to other areas. The Secretary of State said that the point made by my Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)
to the effect that it was impossible to give advantages to growth areas without, to some extent, penalising other areas is perfectly true."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1096.]
It is thus established that there is obviously some advantage in being a growth area, over a development district.
My second point to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to


the Board of Trade, who is to reply to this debate, is the comments of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I am glad to see present, in his reply yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton). He made two distinctions between a growth area and a development district. The first is that a growth area will not be descheduled so quickly; I hope that I am not paraphrasing too badly. It means that if an area is a development district and overcomes its unemployment difficulties it may be descheduled by the Board of Trade, but that there is more reluctance on the part of the Board of Trade to deschedule a growth area. This is a matter of alarm to some of us, because we remember the terrible blunders committed by the Board of Trade in descheduling certain areas—Bathgate is the outstanding example—far too quickly. Therefore, this is no comfort to development districts, and, I am sure, little comfort to growth areas.
The second point which is alarming to those of us whose constituencies are not in so-called growth areas appears in column 1067 at Question Time yesterday, when the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
and, secondly, that there will be more investment in and for a growth area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 1067.]
We have failed to ascertain exactly how much is involved in the distinction between more investment for a growth area and less investment for a development district, but, clearly, there is a distinction. This worries us very much.
Not only that, but the Minister of State, Scottish Office, yesterday went on record as saying that this investment in growth areas, unlike other investments, will not be subject to the cuts consequent on a stop/go economic policy. I am surprised at any Minister, of any Government, being in a position to say that. However, if the Minister of State is to be believed, this investment is not only to be higher but is also to be constant, while in the development districts the investment is to be lower and to be subject to natural alterations in Government policy in the light of balance of trade crises.
We in Renfrewshire much resent our exclusion from the White Paper. We have large docking facilities at the Port of Greenock, which, under the Rochdale Committee, will, if the Harbours Bill becomes law, see one of the major developments of harbour facilities on the Clyde. Are we to assume, therefore, that the main road from Glasgow to Greenock, which is the main land connection between the harbour and the Central Belt, will be subject to the kind of investment fluctuations that are the lot of development districts as distinct from areas which are growth areas?
Then, there is the question of the Erskine Bridge, which is so proudly mentioned in the White Paper. Yesterday, however, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who said that the Erskine Bridge is not within the plan in the sense that it has been approved, stated:
The Erskine Bridge will require specific approval by the Government before it can begin. It does not form part of the proposed programme of public works.
This certainly affects the County of Dunbartonshire, which is scheduled, I am glad to say, as a growth area—I only wish we were—although only parts of it, I concede.

Mr. William Ross: They will be able to build one end of the bridge.

Dr. Mabon: The fact is that the Erskine Bridge is an essential part of the development of the whole Clyde basin. Is this neglect because we are on the non-growth area side of the Clyde? Is Renfrewshire going to see this bridge held up and subjected to these peculiarities of Government policy?
Again, there is the electrification of the railway. This has been done on the North side of the Clyde most successfully, yet for 25 years we have been urging that it should be done on the South side. There is no reason why it should not go ahead now. There is only one barrier between sanction and operation—the Treasury. I have had conversations and correspondence with British Railways officials, and I know that there is every satisfaction on economic grounds for the money to be spent on electrification of the railway from Glasgow to Gourock and Wemyss Bay. It is wrong of the Government to stand in the way of such a development, and


the omission of Renfrewshire from the White Paper again makes us worried that this is to be held up even more.
Then there is the question of expansion of Government advance factories. The Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has made it clear that he was only referring to advance factories going to development districts. He was obviously envisaging larger factories for growth areas. But they are not the only areas in need. We hope that he misunderstood his brief and has erred. If it means that we are to get small advance factories in development districts while growth areas get a large part of the building programme of new Government factories, there will be a great deal of discontent in Scotland.
Finally, there is the problem of derelict sites. The record of the Government in encouraging local authorities to clear these sites, and, indeed, of the Government in promoting their own programme, is a disgrace. It measures up to no more than that. I will not go through the figures again. Many of my hon. Friends and I have questioned the Government so often and have received so many disappointing replies that it is not worth my doing so. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary wants to be constructive. I hope that, in relation not only to Renfrewshire but to other parts of Scotland, he will take a second look at the White Paper. We have had such short shrift from the Scottish Office that we now turn, most hopefully, to a United Kingdom Minister for justice. I want to put six suggestions for Renfrewshire.
First, the Government should schedule Renfrewshire and, indeed, the whole of Central Scotland as a single development district. Secondly, there should be a crash programme of large sized advance factories; thirdly, the Board of Trade should embark on its own derelict site clearance programme financed 100 per cent. by the Treasury; fourthly, we should have more effort by the Government to bring public enterprise in Government factories to this area, and failing that—if it is ideologically unacceptable to them—that joint public-private enterprise should take up occupation of these factories.
Fifthly, it is high time the Board of Trade turned to the Chancellor of the

Exchequer and persuaded him to create a Commonwealth Credit Scheme for shipbuilding and machine tools. Many Commonwealth countries are anxious for the supply of these, and there is no reason why the surplus capacity of many constituencies which can produce ships and machine tools should not be fully utilised. At the moment, thanks to pressure from some of my hon. Friends, we have managed to get a Government allowance of £15 millions a year for such a scheme. I suggest that we should expand that scheme, in relation to the Commonwealth at least, perhaps 10 times.
Sixthly, I hope that the Board of Trade intend to put heavier pressure on industry and office expansion in the London area and squeeze them out of there to Scotland, where they are so desperately needed.

10.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): It falls to me to reply to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) who has raised many points under this general title of industrial development in Renfrewshire. I think he will agree that not only is Renfrewshire an important county, but that it is also a very wide area and that it is questionable how far, for the purposes of industrial development, it is meaningful to think of it as a single entity. Part of the hon. Gentleman's argument rather bore out that contention. Certainly the Eastern end of the county, adjacent to the great City of Glasgow, is far more closely linked with the general development of what, for the purposes of brevity, I might call Greater Glasgow than with Greenock and Port Glasgow at the hon. Gentleman's own end of the county. None the less, the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject on a county basis and I shall endeavour so to reply.
We recognise that Renfrewshire has a serious unemployment problem and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are seven local employment exchanges serving the county—Port Glasgow and Greenock constituting the Greenock group, Paisley and Renfrew and John-stone constituting the Paisley group, and Barrhead and part of Glasgow South-side belonging to the Glasgow group of exchanges.
Unemployment, as the hon. Gentleman knows far better than I, is and has been more serious in the Greenock group of exchanges than in the Paisley group. The latest figures for the Greenock group show that in December, 1963, there were 2,955 unemployed, representing 6·7 per cent. of the registered labour force, compared with 3,776 at 8·5 per cent. in December, 1962. In the Paisley group, the figures were 2,486 in December, 1963,representing 3·4 per cent. compared with 2,673 or 3·7 per cent. in December, 1962. It will be seen from the figures that there has been some improvement in the position over the last twelve months.

Dr. Mabon: indicated dissent.

Mr. Price: There has. The figures show it. Equally, we agree that there is still a clear need for further industrial development leading to new employment opportunities in the county, and especially in the Greenock and Port Glasgow area.
The hon. Member rightly asked what had been done by the Board of Trade to encourage new industrial developments in the county. As he knows, and I do not need to remind the House, the whole of the county is now scheduled as a development district, and in consequence the standard grant for the two categories of "plant and machinery" and "buildings", B.O.T.A.C. loans and free depreciation have been and are now available in Renfrewshire. Industrialists have made use of these facilities, not, I grant, to the extent of solving the county's problems, but at least substantially, and I should like to give the House some figures in support of my contention.
Between April 1960 and the end of 1963, total assistance offered under the relevant Sections of the Local Employment Acts of 1960 and 1963 have amounted to more than £21,600,000. This has given rise to more than 10,300 jobs. In fairness to the hon. Member, I must add that the projects so assisted have been located principally in the Eastern end of the county, but the figures I have quoted indicate that substantial efforts have been made to encourage new industrial projects in the county.
In addition, there are three major Board of Trade estates within the county

—Hillington, which is the largest industrial estate in Scotland with more than 120 tenants; Linwood, which houses the two great firms of Pressed Steel and Rootes; and Port Glasgow, which is adjacent to Greenock Docks and which provides some 2,200 jobs. There is also the small Cairn estate in Greenock which supplies about600 jobs.
I should now like to examine the problems of the Port Glasgow and Greenock area more closely, first because the hon. Member represents Greenock and, secondly, because in terms of unemployment this seems to be the more serious end of the county. This area has been and still is highly dependent on shipbuilding, and even today shipbuilding and marine engineering employ half the manufacturing labour force of the district and one quarter of the total working population. The need for diversification of the industrial structure of Port Glasgow and Greenock is clear, and we at the Board of Trade accept it. What have we done to encourage diversification? Since the war, no less than 55 industrial building schemes, providing nearly 1.8 million square feet of factory space, have been completed. They have comprised a wide range of industries—textiles, clothing, engineering and foodstuffs and have clearly contributed towards the diversification of the industrial base of the area.
Recently, the main element of expansion in the area has been engineering. Nevertheless, the area is still very dependent on shipbuilding. Here, I can report progress. The Government's Shipbuilding Credit Scheme, which has considerably improved the position in the shipbuilding industry as a whole, has had significant effects in Greenock and Port Glasgow. The total value of orders secured by firms in the area in the second half of 1963 amounted to about £25 million. These orders included three cargo ships, three oil tankers, two bulk carriers, and two submarines, and the leading shipbuilders of the area report that as a result their general level of employment will be maintained for a considerable time to come.
Then there is the new graving dock under construction at Greenock by the Firth of Clyde Dry Dock Company. As the House knows, this will be the largest dry dock in the United Kingdom and


will be able to take tankers of up to 100,000 tons deadweight, whereas 24,000 tons was previously the maximum which could be repaired anywhere on Clyde-side. This project is receiving substantial support from the Board of Trade. It is expected to be completed and in operation by the end of March. It is expected by the company to employ eventually about 1,000 people. Executive staff are already being engaged, and the main labour force will start to be recruited towards the end of February.
I should like to say a little more about the Port Glasgow Industrial Estate. The area of factories built and occupied totals more than 500,000 sq. ft., and about 2,200 people are employed on the estate. The estate—and this I think answers some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman about making land available in Greenock—consisted of 50 acres in 1946 when work started. In 1962 it was decided to extend it by 17 adjoining acres. This extension is at present being opened up, and an advance factory of 10,000 sq. ft. is in course of construction. It is due to be completed by the middle of July or early August this year. Twenty-two remaining acres of the total 67 acres are suitable for development on which, it is estimated, a further 250,000 sq. ft. of factory space could be erected. More than £30,000 of public money is being spent currently on the provision of new internal roads and other improvements on the estate to make it more attractive for industry and any firm which goes there will get the full benefit of the two Local Employment Acts and the free depreciation provisions. This should make the estate a thoroughly worthwhile location for industrial development.
In addition, it has been agreed to make land available on the Estate to the Ministry of Public Building and Works for the erection of a 30,000 sq. ft. factory as a Ministry of Labour training centre, where about 100 at a time could be trained. It is also proposed that the factory be returned to industrial use when the Ministry of Labour has completed its training programme.

Dr. Mabon: When will the industrial training centre be started?

Mr. Price: I cannot answer that now, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman

after consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
I now propose to say a word about the Paisley group of exchanges which covers most of East Renfrewshire. As the House knows, these exchanges were taken off the "stop list" and reactivated in September of last year, and I am glad to say that the situation around Paisley has improved. Over the year ending November, 1963, Rootes and Pressed Steel recruited over 3,700 workpeople, to make their total employment about 8,600, and they expect to increase further during the present year.
The prospects for continued improvement round Paisley are encouraging. According to our information there are about 1,700 jobs in prospect, as against 1,150 currently unemployed. By contrast, in the Greenock group there are about 1,400 jobs in prospect, as against 3,700 unemployed. Therefore, clearly the Greenock situation is more urgent.
None the less, the prospects are not as black as they were. Clearly more industrial development is needed, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we in the Board of Trade will continue to use our powers to encourage industrial development in Renfrewshire. I must, however, emphasise that we have no power to direct industry to any area, nor do we wish to do so. None the less, we use our powers to restrict industrial expansion in areas where unemployment is low, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he were to come to my office and meet hon. Members from London, Birmingham, and the crowds areas, he would find them all too conscious of the difficulties of securing I.D.C.s in the congested areas.
I end by taking up the general question raised by the hon. Gentleman about Renfrewshire's place in the development programme; for Central Scotland. As the House knows, the programme for Central Scotland adopted the concept of growth areas. These are places where conditions are likely to be most conducive to industrial expansion.
One of the aims of the White Paper was to identify those areas which after taking into account a wide range of social and physical factors, including access to the main networks of communications and availability of industrial sites, seem to offer the greater


prospect of rapid industrial growth. This does not mean that no development will be encouraged in other areas, but merely that in a closely knit community like Central Scotland the Government believe that special stimulation of growth in the most favourable areas offers the best prospects for faster overall development to the benefit of the whole of Central Scotland. I recommend to the hon. Member paragraph 104 of the White Paper. He will excuse my not reading it because time is pressing.
The hon. Member criticised the fact that there is no growth area in Renfrewshire, especially in view of the unemployment in Greenock and Port Glasgow. But the selection of growth areas was not made solely or even primarily on the basis of the local level of unemployment, but on the basis of potentialities for growth. Whatever is chosen, there will be some people who will say that we should have chosen somewhere else. The selection of growth areas does not mean that other parts of Central Scotland are being ignored. I refer to paragraph 115 of the White Paper, which says:
Most of the remaining areas of Central Scotland will form part of the labour catchment of the selected growth areas or are themselves scheduled as development districts. In many of these areas there are good sites available whose attractiveness to industry will be increased as the regional infrastructure services are improved. For unemployment and emigration to be reduced, new industrial development must continue to be persuaded to come to these areas. Indeed some industries may find that their needs can be better met here than in the growth areas.

Dr. Mabon: Would the hon. Gentleman comment on the cut in investment in development districts in difficult circumstances as distinct from the Minister of State's remarks yesterday that investment in growth areas would not be cut irrespective of economic conditions?

Mr. Price: One imagines that conditions could become so serious that there would have to be a cut. But we have given an undertaking not to consider de-scheduling growth areas. There is no question of bringing to a halt public investment outside the growth areas or of discouraging private investment. My right hon. Friend has given an assurance that the general investment programme,

particularly as it pertains to growth areas, will be guaranteed. The hon. Member should not read into that that the plans which are announced for development districts in his constituency which are not growth areas will thereby be cut. I do not think he can draw that conclusion from what my right hon. Friend said. All the conclusion he can draw is that the investment plans proposed are even more secure in growth areas than in development districts which are not growth areas. If he has the idea that as soon as one runs into a little trading difficulty automatically Greenock's plans for investment will be cut—

Dr. Mabon: That is the implication.

Mr. Price: He is not entitled to draw that conclusion. For unemployment and migration to be reduced, new development must be persuaded to come to these areas. Some districts outside growth areas may meet their needs better than the growth areas themselves. It may well be that a firm may find an estate such as the one in which the hon. Member and I have a common interest more attractive to the type of manufacture it wishes to carry out and prefer this to one of the designated growth areas.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper takes nothing away from places outside the growth areas. Renfrewshire, being covered by development districts, would continue to enjoy the benefit of free depreciation for tax purposes and all the assistance under the Local Employment Acts. There is no question of bringing to a halt public investment outside the growth areas or discouraging private investment, nor do we in the Board of Trade seek to steer what in the jargon one might call "foot-loose" industries which are refused permission in crowded areas away from development districts that are outside the growth areas. If firms take the view that they would rather go to a development district outside a growth area, we certainly would not discourage them from so doing.

Dr. Mabon: Would the Board of trade encourage them?

Mr. Price: If they want to, yes; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all development districts are equal.

Dr. Mabon: Some are more equal than others?

Mr. Price: It depends on what a firm is trying to do. One firm may need a lot of industrial water. The number of places in the whole of the kingdom which have very large supplies of water—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past Eleven o'clock